Oral
Answers to
Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Industrial Strategy

John Howell: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that Scotland benefits fully from the industrial strategy.

Stuart Andrew: The industrial strategy is a strategy for the whole UK and will bring significant opportunities for Scotland. We are working with businesses, universities and business groups across Scotland to seize those opportunities. In line with devolution, the Scottish Government, of course, hold many of the levers to boost and support the growth that we hope the strategy will bring.

John Howell: Earlier this year, the Secretary of State for International Trade launched a drive to attract more than £2 billion of investment into Scottish companies as part of the modern industrial strategy. Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s efforts to boost exports and to ensure that the benefits of free trade are spread right across the UK?

Stuart Andrew: I agree with my hon. Friend. Driving investment is one of the key ways we will deliver the industrial strategy, which will bring the benefits we want to see for Scotland. This pro-investment approach will see a truly global Britain hopefully becoming a leading place for people to invest.

John Bercow: I call Angus Brendan MacNeil.

Angus MacNeil: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is gesticulating from a sedentary position in respect to some other question that we have not reached, but might, and on which he may or may not be called.

Alan Brown: What is the Secretary of State doing to argue that Scotland should be able to bid for onshore wind in contract for difference auctions?

Stuart Andrew: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be an announcement shortly. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has many meetings with his Cabinet colleagues to discuss such issues.

Stephen Kerr: In November, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced a review of how the UK and Scottish Governments could work more closely to support business in Scotland as part of the modern industrial strategy. Will my hon. Friend update the House on the progress of that review?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that an important part of delivering this industrial strategy is the UK and Scottish Governments working collaboratively. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary gave evidence to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee in April, and he has also hosted a roundtable with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, so a lot is going on.

Lesley Laird: As a football fan, I wish England good luck tonight in their semi-final. Although 1966 may have been a very good year, 1967 was even better.
In 1999 it was a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland who stood up for Scottish shipyards and ensured that the contract for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary was given to the shipyards in Govan. Roll forward to 2018 and the contract for the fleet solid support ships is out for tender. Analysis by the GMB shows a direct tax and national insurance benefit and return to the Treasury of £285 million, but so far, the current Conservative Secretary of State has refused to stand up for Scottish shipyards. I therefore ask him a very straightforward question: why not?

Stuart Andrew: As someone who was born in Wales, who now lives in England and whose father and family come from Scotland, I join the hon. Lady in wishing the English team every success today.
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not fighting for shipbuilding in this country. Our warships, which are being built in the UK, are securing 4,000 jobs and 20 years of work on the Clyde, and the British industry is preparing to bid for a new Type 31 class. We want all British yards to take part in the latest applications for the new contracts, and we hope that they are successful.

Lesley Laird: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not reply for himself, which answers my question about why he is not standing up for Scotland.
Without the fleet solid support ships contract, Rosyth will be struggling for work and thousands will be worse off as a result. Labour’s Opposition day debate today will call on the Government to build these ships in the UK—build them here. The Government have a majority of 13, and there are 13 Scottish Tory MPs. Will this finally be the issue on which Scottish Tories stand up for Scotland? Will they and the Secretary of State back the motion, and will the Secretary of State encourage his other Westminster colleagues to do the same? Build them in Britain.

Stuart Andrew: Our Scottish Conservative MPs work day in, day out, not just for their constituencies, but for Scotland as a whole, and I am very proud of the work they do—they really are a formidable team. Last year, we unveiled an ambitious new national shipbuilding strategy, which met the challenge set by the independent Sir John Parker, who said:
“I am very impressed by the courage that the Secretary of State has shown—and the Government—in adopting my recommendations, which were very extensive”.
That shows that we are behind the shipbuilding industry.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018: Legislative Consent

Angela Crawley: What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Government and (b) Prime Minister on the Scottish Parliament’s decision not to grant a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Joanna Cherry: What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Government and (b) Prime Minister on the Scottish Parliament’s decision not to grant a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Hannah Bardell: What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Government and (b) Prime Minister on the Scottish Parliament’s decision not to grant a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

David Mundell: The Joint Ministerial Committee (European Negotiations) met last Thursday and the Prime Minister was fully briefed on the outcome.

Angela Crawley: After repeated exclusion from Brexit discussions, the Secretary of State was finally allowed a place at the table at Chequers last week. How did he use that time to speak up for Scotland? What representations did he make on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, given the majority vote to withhold legislative consent?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady is conflating a number of issues, but what I can confirm to her is, as I discussed with Mr Russell last Thursday, that the Scottish Government produced a very complete document with their views to be fed into that meeting of the Cabinet, and I fed them in.

Joanna Cherry: That was a bit of a disappointing answer, so may I probe a bit further? The Prime Minister’s Chequers agreement rides roughshod over the Scottish Parliament. Scotland’s economy is heavily reliant on services. Thousands of my constituents work in that sector, yet she is determined to make a deal in which services are taken out. Has the Secretary of State  worked out the impact of the Prime Minister’s decision on the Scottish economy yet, and what is he going to do about it?

David Mundell: At the heart of the issue is a fact in the Scottish Government’s document that this Government could not accept—the Scottish National party Scottish Government do not want to leave the European Union. The Prime Minister is focused on leaving the EU on a basis that not only does the best for British business, but respects the outcome of a referendum across the whole of the UK.

Hannah Bardell: I hear that the Secretary of State has been going about boasting that he is the longest serving member of Cabinet in role, but it seems odd that being invisible and ineffective has been rewarded. He has failed to represent and respect the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. He has failed to speak up for Scotland in the Cabinet and failed to meet his promise to debate devolution in the Commons. When will he accept those failures and resign?

David Mundell: Goodness—the hon. Lady did not get a chance in the debate last week, so she just reheats the same old stuff. At the heart of this is the fact that the SNP does not accept and does not like the representations I make on behalf of Scotland, which are about keeping Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Steven Baker: Over the past year, it has been a huge privilege to work closely with my right hon. Friend on this issue. Does he agree that the ludicrous theatrics of the nationalist party are a disservice to the people of not only Scotland, but the whole United Kingdom, because of the detrimental effect they had on the passage of the EU withdrawal Act?

David Mundell: I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts as a Minister. He was one of the hardest working Ministers I have ever encountered, and I absolutely agree with what he said. Although there are people in this Chamber who have their differences on Brexit, the SNP is not interested in Brexit—Brexit has been weaponised purely to take forward the cause of independence and have another independence referendum.

Alister Jack: Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the 2018 Act will not remove any of the Scottish Parliament’s current powers?

David Mundell: I can absolutely do that. We have heard repeatedly from the SNP about a power grab, but when Nicola Sturgeon reshuffled her Cabinet, she needed more Ministers because of the powers and responsibilities that the Scottish Government were taking on. Today, we learn that they have taken on additional office space in Glasgow for a bigger organisation because they are delivering existing priorities while embracing additional responsibilities.

Bill Grant: Scotland trades around four times as much with the rest of the United Kingdom as it does with the European Union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our top priority must be to ensure that the internal UK market is protected as soon as we leave the European Union?

David Mundell: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The UK internal market which, as he says, is worth four times as much to Scotland as trade with the whole of the EU put together, may not be important to the Scottish National party, but it is important to businesses and for jobs in Scotland, and we will stand up to protect it.

Ian Murray: With regard to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act or any issue to do with the EU in this House, will the Secretary of State  tell us how many times Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, has demanded that he or any of the 13 Scottish Conservative MPs vote against the Government line?

David Mundell: Ruth Davidson makes a very clear statement of her position on European issues and contributes fully to the debate. Government Members want to achieve a good deal for Scotland and the UK as we leave the EU. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bring himself to support that.

Tommy Sheppard: I am keen to get some clarity on the Secretary of State’s discussions with the Scottish Government and the debate at Chequers last Friday. Given that the Chequers agreement talks about a free trade area and a common rulebook, and therefore impacts directly on the areas that were discussed in respect of joint arrangements after Brexit, will he confirm that the content of that agreement was discussed with the Scottish Government in advance?

David Mundell: This comes back to the same question that the hon. Gentleman asks on each occasion. He cannot accept that Scotland has two Parliaments and two Governments.

Tommy Sheppard: I will take that as a no, then, which is beyond disappointing. The Secretary of State continues his disrespect for devolution. Given that the Government are changing their entire direction with respect to this matter, will he commit today to consulting the Scottish Government and coming to an agreement with them on how to administer things in Scotland after Brexit?

David Mundell: I am very keen and willing to work with the Scottish Government. As I said, the Scottish Government set out a helpful summary of their position, which we discussed with Mr Russell last week. I then set out the Scottish Government’s concerns and issues during the Cabinet meeting. After that Cabinet meeting, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and people from the Prime Minister’s office updated the Scottish Government on the Chequers summit.

John Bercow: We need to make faster progress; it is far too slow.

Paul Sweeney: I feel that I ought to congratulate the Secretary of State on achieving a new milestone as the longest-serving member in one role in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet, but I fear that may be by virtue of his invisibility, rather than his invincibility. As we have just heard, the Secretary of State is failing to stand up for Scotland’s interests when it comes to shipbuilding, and he and his 12 Scottish Tory colleagues have failed to stand up for Scotland’s devolution settlement. Will he use the influence that he should have developed over the past few years and condemn his Government’s handling of the devolution settlement, thereby demonstrating that he is not just Scotland’s invisible man in the Cabinet?

David Mundell: What I condemn is the once proud Unionist Scottish Labour party repeatedly voting with the SNP in Holyrood. I am afraid they have become just Nicola’s little helpers.

Leaving the EU: Fishing

Douglas Ross: What assessment he has made of the opportunities for the Scottish fishing industry after the UK leaves the EU.

David Duguid: What assessment he has made of the opportunities for the Scottish fishing industry after the UK leaves the EU.

Chris Green: What assessment he has made of the opportunities for the Scottish fishing industry after the UK leaves the EU.

David Mundell: I am proud to say that this Conservative Government are unequivocally taking Scotland’s fishermen out of the hated common fisheries policy. Just last week, the UK Government published their fisheries White Paper, which sets out that as an independent coastal state, we will at long last regain control of our waters.

Douglas Ross: Does the Secretary of State know whether the Scottish Government are supporting the central aims of that fisheries White Paper—namely that we leave the CFP; that we decide who catches what, where and when; that we manage the expansion of our industry in a sustainable way; and that we are not blackmailed by Brussels for our market—or does the SNP want to keep us in the hated CFP?

John Bercow: Hopelessly long. I have already said that we need to speed up. The trouble is that people have these pre-prepared, scripted questions—[Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) has learned it, and we are grateful to him.

David Mundell: Sadly, the Scottish Government’s position remains exactly as it has been throughout: to take Scotland back into the CFP.

David Duguid: Last week’s publication of the fisheries White Paper was a hugely welcome step for an industry that is looking to capitalise on the benefits of leaving the EU. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, during the exit negotiations with the EU, this Government will keep the issues of access to British waters for EU vessels and access to the EU market for British fish separate, as they must not be conflated?

David Mundell: Yes, we will.

John Bercow: Absolutely marvellous.

Chris Green: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will take many years to build the Scottish fishing fleet back up to full strength, but that that would never happen if the SNP got its way and kept us in the common fisheries policy?

David Mundell: Absolutely, and we can see that in the response of the fishing industry. This Government are right behind the fishing industry in taking advantage of what it sees as a sea of opportunity.

Douglas Chapman: Fifty per cent. of the fish processing industry relies on an EU workforce. What protection has the Secretary of State negotiated within the Cabinet to secure their future post-Brexit?

David Mundell: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has secured a very apposite debate on that matter this evening. I am very conscious of this issue, and I will be meeting the Home Secretary next week.

John McNally: The White Paper refers to the seafood trade as “vital” but, as with EU workers, no information is given about how it will be protected. This will be of concern to the live shellfish industry in Orkney and Shetland, which enjoys a frictionless customs passage in the EU at the moment. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that that frictionless passage will continue?

David Mundell: I am very conscious of the issues around not just catching and processing fish, but the markets, and those will be at the forefront of our thinking as we take forward leaving the EU.

Rachel Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what benefits there will be from leaving the common fisheries policies for the whole of the United Kingdom?

David Mundell: Mr Speaker, you have asked me to be brief, so I will refer my hon. Friend to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation document “Sea of Opportunity”.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not know what the Secretary of State plans to be doing at 7 o’clock this evening, but I shall be here, along with the Immigration Minister, for the end-of-day Adjournment debate on the subject of visas for non-EEA nationals in the fishing industry. If he could fix that and get the industry the labour that it needs between now and 7 pm, we could both probably think of something else to be doing.

David Mundell: I am afraid that I cannot meet the right hon. Gentleman’s timescale but, like him and others, I wish England well in their game this evening. On the substantive issue that he raises, I would be very happy to speak to him directly ahead of my meeting with the Home Secretary.

Connectivity

John Lamont: What steps the Government are taking to support connectivity between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Paul Masterton: What steps the Government are taking to support connectivity between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Stuart Andrew: Scotland’s trade with the rest of the UK is, as we heard a moment ago, four times that with the EU, so good connectivity is vital to our shared  prosperity. The recent vote on Heathrow was critical. Maintaining and enhancing routes to Scotland will bring key benefits, and more frequent and new routes will be served to help to improve connectivity.

John Lamont: Many businesses in my constituency depend on customers and staff from south of the border, so what discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about improving cross-border links on the A1, A68 and A7, and, crucially, the extension of the Borders Railway to Carlisle?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that cross-border connectivity is crucial right across the United Kingdom. He and his constituents will quite rightly expect the UK Government to commit to working closely and constructively with the Scottish Government so that we have a joined-up approach. We are working on a day-to-day level, and at an official level between the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland. As for long-term projects, the potential of the borderlands growth deal could stand to be transformative for his constituents.

Paul Masterton: Does my hon. Friend agree with the managing director of Glasgow airport, Derek Provan, who said that additional flights resulting from a third runway at Heathrow are “imperative for Scottish business”, and can he guarantee that a good proportion of those additional flights will go from Glasgow?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and so is the MD of Glasgow airport. The third runway is imperative for Scottish businesses, which is why we have set very clear expectations that 15% of the slots that are made available will be for domestic flights. It is disappointing that the Scottish National party did not vote for this expansion. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I understand the sense of anticipation and excitement in the Chamber, but it seems very unfair on the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) that his question was not fully heard, and that we could not properly hear the mellifluous tones of a very courteous Minister. If there could be greater attentiveness to these important matters, it would be a great advance.

Martin Whitfield: Will the Minister confirm his support for local councils, including my own of East Lothian, in their application for wave 3 funding for broadband roll-out from this Government?

Stuart Andrew: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman specific confirmation at this point, but I would be more than happy to write to him, if he would allow me to.

Christine Jardine: Does the Minister share the concern in Scotland that, although the third runway for Heathrow might be helpful to the south-east of England, the effect on the Scottish climate of those extra flights—rather than direct flights or improved rail services—could actually be damaging?

Stuart Andrew: As the hon. Lady is probably aware, when we made the announcement and had the vote, we made a commitment to having a strong environmental plan. We will be looking at that very seriously.

Telecommunications: Rural Areas

Jamie Stone: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on improving telecommunications in rural Scotland.

David Mundell: May I first welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) to his role as Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and thank his predecessor for his energy and the interest that he showed in Scotland? I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues regarding a wide range of issues relating to Scotland and look forward to working closely with the new Secretary of State on this issue.

Jamie Stone: The Secretary of State will be aware that mobile reception in my constituency is variable, to say the very least. The Home Office has given a company called EE a large amount of money to install infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State help other providers to access this infrastructure?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue for rural Scotland; it is also very important in my own Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency. I will give him that undertaking.

Kirstene Hair: Last month, the then Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport warned that Scotland was due to miss its target of connecting every business and home in Scotland with superfast broadband. Does the Secretary of State for Scotland agree that the SNP is letting down rural areas such as my constituency of Angus?

David Mundell: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for improved broadband in rural Scotland. Indeed, she is correct that the Scottish Government have let Scotland down on this issue.

Pete Wishart: According to thinkbroadband, 93.4% of premises in Scotland now have access to superfast broadband, which compares with 95% in the UK. This has been done with some of the most challenging geography in the whole of Europe, with some £580 million of Scottish Government money being put into the last 5%. Will the Secretary of State now congratulate the Scottish Government on achieving this and thank them for investing in a reserved area, which is his responsibility?

David Mundell: Rather than reading out Scottish Government press releases, the hon. Gentleman should be standing up for his constituents and people across rural Scotland who get a poor deal on broadband, which is primarily due to the ineffectiveness of the Scottish Government.

Devolution

Gavin Newlands: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament.

David Mundell: My ministerial colleagues and I frequently meet the Scottish Government to discuss a range of issues relating to the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016. Only last week, I gave my agreement to a section 104 order for the delivery of welfare benefits. This makes changes to UK legislation so that the Scottish Government can take on Executive responsibility for carer’s allowance.

Gavin Newlands: I am sure that they are very grateful for that. The Secretary of State has said:
“The UK Government will continue working closely with the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations to develop a fishing policy that works for the whole of the UK.”
In reality, they were shown a copy of the White Paper with no consultation. Will he please define “working closely”?

David Mundell: My definition of “working closely” is that, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I met Fergus Ewing, the Minister responsible for fishing, at the highland show, it was very cordial.

Luke Graham: As most people in the House know, the Smith commission will have the cross-party commitment to have more devolution from Edinburgh to local authorities, and not to centralise power. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the devolved Administration to ensure that that happens?

David Mundell: As my hon. Friend knows, these matters are devolved, but it is a matter of profound disappointment that, rather than devolving powers on within Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government have become one of the most centralised Governments anywhere in the world.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I see it is a five-way contest in the SNP ranks, but we have got to hear from the Select Committee Chair, and I hope he will be brief.

Angus MacNeil: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—you are a great man indeed.
Devolving powers over work visas would make a tremendous difference to the fishing industry and get people in from non-EEA countries such as, in particular, Ghana and the Philippines, who are very valued in Scotland. Will this Government get on with their job, stop the Brexit soap opera, lift the pin, get the men in, get the boats fishing, and get taxes being paid—and move now?

David Mundell: I have already advised the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—who, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard, is having a debate at 7 pm this evening; I am sure he will want to be there—that I take this issue very seriously. I am meeting the Home Secretary on it next week.

Philippa Whitford: I do not think that meeting Fergus Ewing at the highland show can really count as consultation, so what formal consultation was carried out before the fishing White Paper was published?

David Mundell: As I think the hon. Lady will appreciate, the White Paper is itself a consultation, so let us hear her and the SNP’s views on fishing. But of course they do not really want to tell us, because their view is, “Take Scotland back into the common fisheries policy.”

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Chris Stephens: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 11 July.

David Lidington: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the NATO summit in Brussels.
I know that Members on both sides of this House would like to join me in paying tribute to Lord Carrington, who died on Monday. His was an extraordinary life of public service, including as Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and Secretary General of NATO.
I am sure, too, that all Members would also wish to commend the incredible efforts of the authorities in Thailand and the volunteers from the British Cave Rescue Council for their role in the successful rescue operation. We wish them, the boys and the coach who were rescued and their families well. I know that we would all wish also to offer our condolences to the family of the Thai diver, Saman Gunan, who sadly lost his life during the rescue operation.
Finally, I am sure that all Members, whichever part of the United Kingdom they come from, would join me in congratulating Gareth Southgate and the England team on their fantastic performance in the quarter-final on Saturday, and in wishing them the very best for this evening’s match against Croatia. I will happily buy the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) a flag to help her to join in.
In addition to my duties in this House, I have had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and will have further such meetings later today.

Chris Stephens: As someone who supports the principle of independence for England, I have no problem in supporting England tonight.
I thank the Minister for his role in helping to secure a public inquiry into contaminated blood. My constituent Cathy Young and many infected blood campaigners, however, remain concerned that the inquiry will be delayed, like Chilcot, by those who may have a case to answer through the Maxwellisation process. Does the Minister agree that truth and justice should not be delayed? Will he commit to the Government looking at legislative changes to the Maxwellisation process?

David Lidington: This is of course a tragedy that has caused unimaginable hardship and pain for the people affected. Let me say straightaway that we recognise the hard work that the hon. Gentleman and others from  all political parties here have put into campaigning on this issue.
In relation to the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I am sure he will understand that whether or not the inquiry adopts a Maxwellisation process is a matter for the independent inquiry itself. It is, as the term suggests, independent of ministerial direction, but having talked to Sir Brian Langstaff directly, I know that he and his team are very mindful of the need for speed. Victims of infected blood continue to die, and I know that Sir Brian is determined to complete the inquiry’s work as quickly as a thorough examination of the facts allows. The Government are committed to ensuring that the inquiry has all the resources and everything else it needs to complete that task as rapidly as possible.

Nigel Evans: As a proud Welshman and a proud Brit, I say, “Come on England!”
Crime is on the increase in the Ribble Valley, including antisocial behaviour orders, but the response from the Labour police and crime commissioner is to close front desk services at police stations, including Clitheroe police station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not better protect the public by degrading the service that they pay for?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right to say that the accessibility of local officers is a vital principle of British policing. He will know that we have provided a strong and comprehensive settlement that is increasing total investment in the police system by more than £460 million in this financial year, and for Lancashire police specifically, we have provided more than £6 million for 2017-18. As he says, decisions about resources, including the use of police stations, are a matter for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, but I encourage those who make those decisions to listen to their local communities to best assess their needs.

John Bercow: Before I call the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), I should mention that we are very fortunate today to be joined in one of our Galleries by two members of the Osmond family, Jay and Merrill Osmond. It takes some of us back to the 1970s. We are very pleased to have you—well done.

Emily Thornberry: May I join the Minister in paying tribute to Lord Carrington, who served his country with such distinction in both the forces and in government and whose decision to resign the office of Foreign Secretary will be remembered as an act of great principle and honour?
I share the joy at the rescue of the boys in Thailand and salute the bravery and sacrifice of the diving teams, including the seven British divers.
On the question of tonight’s match, I am afraid that I am not going to be watching it. It will be the only game that I have missed, but I will be representing the Labour party at tonight’s memorial event for the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide—something very close to my heart, given my father’s role in trying to prevent it.
Let me wish Gareth Southgate and the England team the best of luck for this match and hopefully for the final on Sunday. I may know very little about football, but even I can see that England’s progress so far at the World cup shows what can be achieved when all the  individual players work effectively as a team, when there is a clear game plan, when they are all working together and, of course, when everyone respects and listens to the manager. Can I simply ask the Minister what lessons he thinks the England team could teach this shambles of a Government?

David Lidington: I think that the England team does teach some good lessons about the importance of having a clear plan which the leader, the team captain, has the full support of the squad in delivering. We will of course be publishing tomorrow full details of the United Kingdom plan for Brexit, which we will be putting to the British public and to our 27 European partners. When the right hon. Lady gets up again, perhaps she will tell us what the Labour party’s alternative plan is, for at the moment that is one of the best kept secrets in politics.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Minister for that answer, but who does he think he is kidding? Even Donald Trump can see that the Government are in turmoil, and he has not even got to Britain yet.
May I ask the Minister once again the question I asked him at PMQs in December 2016, when he compared Labour’s shadow Cabinet to “Mutiny on the Bounty” remade by the “Carry On” team. By those standards, what would he describe his lot now as—perhaps “Reservoir Dogs” remade by the Chuckle Brothers? But let me take him back to our first PMQs in 2016, when I asked him how it was possible to retain frictionless trade with Europe without remaining in a customs union. I got no answer then. Let me try again today. Can he explain how frictionless trade is going to be achieved under this Government’s Chequers plan?

David Lidington: The right hon. Lady will see the detail in the White Paper but, if she had been listening to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday, she would have heard the Prime Minister explain very clearly that we believe a combination of the common rulebook on goods and on agri-food, coupled with the facilitated customs arrangement that we are proposing, will provide just that. What is more, that takes full account of the wish of United Kingdom business to ensure that frictionless trade will continue. If the right hon. Lady disagrees, will she stand up and say what her alternative proposal is?

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Minister for that answer on the Chequers free trade proposal, but I was hoping today that he would go beyond the theory and explain in practice how it works. So let me check one specific, but important point. For the Chequers proposal to work in practice, based on what the Prime Minister said on Monday, not just the UK, but every EU member state will have to apply the correct tariff to imports, depending if they are destined for the UK or the EU, and then will have to track each consignment until it reaches its destination to stop any customs fraud. If that is correct, can I ask the Minister what new resources and technology will be required to put that system in place across the EU? How much is it going to cost, who is going to pay and how long is it going to take?

David Lidington: No, I am afraid the right hon. Lady is incorrect in her assumptions. For a start, the customs model that we are proposing would not, under the  arrangements that we suggest, affect either imports or exports involving this country and the European Union. They would not involve exports from this country to the rest of the world. We are talking about imports to this country from non-EU member states. Our calculation is that when, in particular, we look at the importance of those sectors where either zero tariffs or very low tariffs already exist under World Trade Organisation arrangements, or where finished goods are involved and therefore it is easy to identify the final destination, we will find that 96% of UK goods trade is going to pay either the correct or no tariff at all at the border.

Emily Thornberry: The Minister has, I believe, said something quite interesting, and I do hope that his Back Benchers are listening very carefully. He says that the Chequers free trade proposal will require no new technology and will involve no tracking of goods, but how can that be possible if there is no divergence on tariffs and no divergence on regulation—in other words, on trade in goods we will continue exactly as we are at present?

David Lidington: I am afraid the right hon. Lady might not have sat through all the Prime Minister’s statement and responses to questions on Monday, but my right hon. Friend made it very clear that we are actively looking in these new circumstances—frankly, we would, as a sensible Government, be looking anyway—at the opportunities that new technology offers, and will offer in the future, to minimise friction on trade for businesses of all kinds.

Emily Thornberry: The Minister cannot answer these simple questions of detail because he cannot admit the truth. The truth is that the Chequers proposal is total delusion. The UK cannot set its own tariffs on goods and keep frictionless trade with the EU. The technology to do so does not exist. There will be no divergence on tariffs in a free-trade area and no divergence on regulation. It is a customs union in all but name, but it does not cover our service industries, because—the Government claim—that is the great area of potential to negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world. Can I ask the Minister to explain why a country such as China would agree to import more of our services if we cannot agree, in turn, to lower tariffs on its goods?

David Lidington: First, I think that the right hon. Lady still misunderstands the customs arrangements that we are proposing, and I advise her to look at the White Paper when it is published tomorrow. The reason we are proposing to treat services differently is that it is in services that regulatory flexibility matters most for both current and future trading opportunities. Although the EU acquis on goods has been stable for about 30 years, the EU acquis on services has not been, and the risk of unwelcome EU measures coming into play through the acquis on services is much greater.

Emily Thornberry: Well, I have asked the Minister why China would accept such a one-way deal on services, and the answer is that it would not. It is simply another Chequers delusion—a Brexit dream with no grip on reality. There is an easy answer to this mess: an alternative that will offer all the benefits of the Chequers free trade area with no new technology, no cost and no delay;  an alternative that both this House and Europe will accept; and an alternative covering both goods and services. Can I appeal to the Minister to accept that alternative, do what I urged him to do two years ago, and, instead of trying to negotiate some half-baked, back-door version of the customs union, get on with negotiating the real thing?

David Lidington: Again, the right hon. Lady keeps silent about what the Labour party is proposing. The truth is—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I want to hear the reply of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I say, in the most genial spirit possible, to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) that she is allowing her blood pressure to rise unduly. I say in a humanitarian spirit, calm yourself, and let us hear the ministerial reply.

David Lidington: The Labour party says that it would strike new trade deals, but its plan to stay in the customs union would prevent that because it would bind us to the common commercial policy for all time. It used to say that it would control our borders, but it backed an amendment to the withdrawal Bill to let freedom of movement continue.
The Labour party also used to say that it respected the referendum result, but now it is toying once again with the idea of a second referendum. The Labour leader will not rule it out; the deputy leader will not rule it out; and the shadow Brexit Secretary will not rule it out. Nothing could be better calculated to undermine our negotiating position, and lessen our chances of a good deal, than holding out that prospect of a second vote. Whichever side any of us campaigned on in that referendum, the country made a decision, and we should now get on with the task in hand. That is what the Government are doing.

Emily Thornberry: The Minister seems to argue that by leaving the EU the British people voted against a customs union, but that is the complete opposite of what he used to say. I take him back to 2011, when he said that a yes-no referendum would not give us that information. He said:
“that sharp division between the status quo and quitting the EU does not reflect the breadth of views held in…the country.”
For example, he said:
“If people voted to leave the EU would that mean having no special relationship with the EU or would it mean a relationship like Norway’s?”
He said it. My question is, we understand what he is saying, but when did he stop agreeing with himself? I fear that we will look back on this week as one where the Government could have taken a decisive step towards a sensible workable deal to protect jobs and trade. We have ended up with them proposing a dog’s Brexit, which will satisfy no one, which will not fly in Europe, which will waste the next few weeks and will take us—

John Bercow: Order. Thank you. [Interruption.] Order. No, I think we have heard it fully, and that is absolutely right.

David Lidington: The right hon. Lady gave away her misunderstanding, as her question seemed to imply that she thinks Norway is in a customs union with the European Union. It is not. What we have on the table from the Government is a comprehensive set of proposals  that we believe will deliver for British business in terms of frictionless trade and will deliver on what people voted for in the referendum—to restore to this House control of our laws, control of our borders and control of our money—and achieve a new security partnership with our European neighbours that is in the interests of every European country. The right hon. Lady should get behind us, support us and work in the common interest instead of carping from the side lines.

Andrew Rosindell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in London we have experienced a 377% increase in moped crime in the past two years. As the Mayor of London has so failed to tackle crime, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government intervene to make London the safest city in the world?

David Lidington: Reports of crimes involving motorcycles, mopeds and scooters are clearly a concern. We have been working with the police, industry and other partners to develop a comprehensive action plan to focus on what works and what more needs to be done. The police are now using new tactics, including off-road bikes and DNA marker sprays, to catch those committing these crimes. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is now consulting on proposals to give greater legal protection to police officers pursuing offenders. It takes action to secure a reduction in these crimes, not just a press release from the Mayor’s office. Action is what the Government are undertaking.

Ian Blackford: Today is the 23rd anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Yesterday, I witnessed the heartbreaking testimony of two survivors of those heinous crimes against humanity, Dr Ilijaz Pilav and Nusreta Sivac. Today, we all must remember the victims who were tortured, raped and murdered. Will the Minister join me in remembering those victims, and will he commit, on behalf of the Government, to bring forward a debate before the summer recess to put on record our united position that we remember and to debate what measures we can take to help to make sure that such genocide can never be allowed to happen again?

David Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman reminds us that the horror of Srebrenica 23 years ago should remind us all of the intolerance that still exists in the world and why we all have a duty to do what we can to confront and overcome it and to promote genuine reconciliation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard his request for a debate. I hope that the whole House will also, while remembering the appalling tragedy of Srebrenica, take some heart from the fact that yesterday’s western Balkans summit in London, bringing together the leaders of all western Balkans countries in a spirit of co-operation and reconciliation, demonstrates that we have moved a long way in 23 years. The right hon. Gentleman is correct that we must never become complacent. We must always be aware of the need for continuing work and effort.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Minister for his response. Such anniversaries should remind us all of the dangers of extreme bigotry. The world that we live in today is a dangerous one. Tomorrow, the President of the United  States of America will regretfully have the red carpet rolled out for him by this Conservative Government, but from the public, the welcome will be far from warm. With protests planned across Scotland and the United Kingdom against President Trump’s abhorrent policies and dangerous rhetoric, will the Minister follow the SNP’s lead and challenge President Trump on his abysmal record on human rights, his repugnant attitude towards women and his disgusting treatment of minorities, or does the Minister think that he will simply follow the Prime Minister’s lead and join the President hand in hand?

David Lidington: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. This country’s relationship with the United States of America is probably the closest between any two democracies in the west. It has lasted through Democrat and Republican presidencies alike and through Labour and Conservative premierships on this side of the Atlantic. Because of the security co-operation that we have with the United States, UK citizens are alive today who might well not be alive had that co-operation and information and intelligence sharing not taken place. It is therefore right that we welcome the duly elected President of our closest ally, as we shall do tomorrow.

Julian Sturdy: There are growing concerns in my constituency about the proposed changes to planning powers for fracking applications being put forward for consultation by the Government and specifically the idea of treating non-fracking shale exploration as permitted development. Will my right hon. Friend update me on when the consultation will be open, and does he agree that these kinds of planning applications must come forward on the basis of local authority consent?

David Lidington: As my hon. Friend knows, shale gas has the potential to boost economic growth and support thousands of jobs across a number of sectors, as well as adding to this country’s energy security. The Government have outlined how we believe shale gas planning decisions should be made quickly and fairly to all involved. We are committed to consulting on further shale gas planning measures. Those consultations are planned to open over the summer, and I reassure my hon. Friend that these decisions will always be made in a way that ensures that shale use can happen safely, respecting local communities and safeguarding the environment.

George Howarth: The artificial pancreas, which is championed by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, has the potential to transform the lives of those with type 1 diabetes. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look at ways to increase access to diabetes technology, including the artificial pancreas and continuous glucose monitoring, so that everyone with type 1 diabetes will have access to the best available technology?

David Lidington: First, I recognise the work that the right hon. Gentleman personally has put into campaigning on this issue. I am also aware of his personal experience of the devastating impact that this condition can have on families. I reassure him that the Government are committed to promoting the best possible care and treatment for people with diabetes as a priority. The National Institute for Health Research biomedical research  centre in Cambridge is pioneering the development and use of the artificial pancreas, and the prototype system is now being tested by people in their own homes. I understand that the NIHR infrastructure supported more than 100 new studies and recruited almost 38,000 patients to help with those studies. That work is ongoing to test the efficacy of the artificial pancreas, and I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and campaign on this issue to the attention of the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Simon Hoare: While we enjoy the summer weather, it does, of course, present challenges to our farming community. Will my right hon. Friend join the National Farmers Union and me in calling for people not to use sky lanterns, preferably ever, but certainly not during such a tinder-dry harvest? Our food producers deserve our support.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. First, I am sure we would all want to salute the incredible work that firefighters, the military and other partners agencies have done in responding to the wildfires we have seen in various parts of the country in the past couple of weeks. I encourage all organisers of summer events to exercise caution in this hot climate, to follow Home Office guidance on outdoor fire safety and to take steps to prevent the risk of fire from lanterns and fireworks, and to think about both the fire risk and the impact that debris from lanterns has too often had on farmers’ livestock.

Dan Carden: Since the collapse of Carillion six months ago, the new Royal Liverpool Hospital has stood unfinished and empty—a monument to corporate greed. Hospitals are for treating the sick, not lining the pockets of investors, so instead of waiting for commercial lawyers and accountants, holding secret meetings with no public accountability, will the Government now call in this contract, buy out the investors and deliver a publicly owned, publicly run hospital for the people of Liverpool?

David Lidington: First, I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to getting the Royal Liverpool Hospital built as rapidly as possible and to securing best value for money in doing so, and we are supporting the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust in that work, but I do not think that what he advocates, which is to buy out the interests of the banks that have lent money to this project, is the right approach. It would encourage irresponsible lending against the prospect of a Government bail-out down the line. It is important that risk be seen to lie with the banks and the lenders and not be underwritten by the taxpayer. We are working actively with the trust and the existing private sector funders to find a way forward for them to complete the remaining work on the hospital, and we hope that this work will conclude in the very near future.

John Bercow: I have known the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) for more than 30 years, so I fully understand that the comprehensiveness of his replies reflects his past distinction as a noted academic, but I gently make the point that I am determined to get through the questions on the Order Paper.

Alberto Costa: Given the NATO summit this week and the range of threats that this nation faces, including the appalling use of nerve agents on British soil, will my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that the Government will continue to see NATO as the bedrock of Britain’s defence?

David Lidington: First, as far as this Government are concerned, NATO is, and will remain, the bedrock of our collective security, and certainly the threat posed by Russia will be one of the subjects that the Prime Minister and other leaders will be discussing at the summit in Brussels. I reflect with regret on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has said on the record that he wishes that we were not part of NATO. The use of nerve agents in this country is appalling and impossible to excuse. The police continue to investigate what happened and how the attack was caused. The Government are fully committed to supporting the region and its residents and have announced new financial help to Salisbury and the surrounding area today.

Wes Streeting: Until she was raped at the age of 18, my constituent led a healthy and happy life. Since then she has suffered severe post-traumatic stress disorder, seizures and blackouts, panic attacks, anxiety and depression, and is heavily reliant on her mother’s care. The Department for Work and Pensions has refused to award her the enhanced rate of personal independence payment on the basis that when she presented herself for her assessment, she was not demonstrating those particular symptoms. As a result, her mother is unable to claim income support and carers allowance, which is placing financial hardship on top of severe emotional distress.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange a meeting for me with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions? What my constituent has experienced is, I am afraid, another example of what we see week in, week out in our surgeries: the cruel and inhumane consequences of this Government’s welfare policies.

David Lidington: I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on the issue of DIPG for some time. I think the whole House will want to offer sympathy—which I certainly share—to his constituent and to anyone affected by that appalling condition. I will certainly draw the points that he has made to the attention of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and I am sure that a meeting will be arranged for him with either the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: Every Member of Parliament will have about 1,000 constituents who are on the autistic spectrum, and who will suffer from anxiety and often, in crisis moments, will not know where to turn. All of us here are familiar with the expression “Don’t make a mountain out of a molehill”. This week sees the launch of Molehill Mountain, a free, groundbreaking smartphone app which has been developed by the charity Autistica, and which will help autistic adults to manage their anxiety. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this fantastic new app, which could help many people to manage their fears?

David Lidington: I commend my right hon. Friend for the work that she continues to do, through the all-party parliamentary group on autism, to lead the campaign for better, more effective care and support for people with autistic spectrum disorders. I think that the changes in the special educational needs and disability system that were introduced four years ago have enabled us to join up state-provided services more effectively than in the past, but I am more than happy to welcome the new app and any other new technologies that will help people with autistic spectrum disorder.

Darren Jones: The Information Commissioner has fined Facebook for its involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and the Electoral Commission has concluded that the leave campaign broke electoral law. Is now not the time to set up a judge-led inquiry into the Brexit referendum? If the British people have been duped by Brexit shysters, they deserve to know about it.

David Lidington: The Information Commissioner’s report has only just been published, and the Government will want to consider its recommendations in detail before responding. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s point focused on the possible commission of criminal offences. We are in a country in which, rightly, it is not for Ministers either to initiate or to stop criminal investigations or potential prosecutions. When there is evidence, it should be drawn to the attention of the police and the prosecuting authorities, and then let the law take its course.

Julia Lopez: I do not consider myself to be a Brexiteer, but two years ago, when asked to make a choice about the future direction of the country that I love, I voted to leave the European Union, knowing that it would be difficult but believing that our nation could make it work. I was not alone, and I have now been joined by those who voted remain and wish to respect our democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that across our continent people are feeling dangerously ignored, and that if democracy is to mean what we all thought it did, tomorrow’s White Paper will show that we in Britain, at least, will not deny the instruction that our people have given us?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. I think that those of us who campaigned on the remain side need to respect the decision that the people of the country took, and to ponder the damage that would be done to what is already fragile confidence in our democratic institutions were that verdict to be ignored. I am confident that when my hon. Friend reads the White Paper tomorrow, she will see that we have a vision for a future relationship that will meet the vote that the people delivered.

Julie Cooper: I am sure the Minister will want to join me in thanking hospices across the country for the fantastic work they do supporting the terminally ill and their families, and especially the Pendleside Hospice that supports my constituents, but is he aware that over the last eight years average Government grants have been cut from 32% to 20%, and that as these charities are outside the “Agenda for Change”, they are not eligible to apply for  funding to cover the NHS pay award? Will he today give a commitment that the Government do value the work of hospices and will he step in to get some extra funding to cover this award?

David Lidington: I am very happy to pay tribute to the work done at the Pendleside Hospice and hospices around the country. It is important that we see hospices as a very important element on a spectrum of palliative care and care at the end of life, which takes place sometimes in a hospice setting and sometimes in other settings. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will of course now be considering with the NHS leadership how to deliver on the ambitious long-term funding arrangement that the Government recently announced, and I am sure he will bear the hon. Lady’s comments in mind.

Sheryll Murray: Cornwall gets back some of our money from the EU in regional aid. Much of that money was, and is, used to invest in agrifood, in which I believe Cornwall is a world leader. How will this investment be able to continue without falling foul of state aid rules in this sector when the Government have said there will be a common rulebook?

David Lidington: I confirm that any investment that is legally able to be made within state aid rules now would be able to continue in the future, and any United Kingdom funding for money currently received as EU regional aid would comply with those same state aid rules going forward.

Nick Smith: Members of my family were either killed or badly injured working in the coalmines of the South Wales valleys. We owe all of our miners a debt of gratitude, yet in recent years the Treasury has raked in billions of pounds from their pension schemes, so will the Chancellor meet me, retired miners and coalfield community MPs to fix this injustice?

David Lidington: We certainly recognise the hard work and incredible risks that miners took in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and many others. The important thing about the miners’ pension scheme is that it should pay out all the promised benefits in full. My understanding is that the scheme is funded to do just that and that no former miner will lose out.

Amber Rudd: The UK and the US have a uniquely strong relationship when it comes to security and intelligence services, the results of which regularly save lives not only in the UK but across Europe. May I ask that when our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets President Trump, she thanks him for that relationship and the results of it, but might also take the opportunity to share with him the many instances that I know my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office knows about, where it is UK intelligence and UK security services that have saved lives in the US?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the intelligence sharing and other security co-operation we have with the United States has saved lives in both countries, and it is vital to both our interests that those relationships continue.

Caroline Lucas: My constituents in Brighton are, sadly, used to chaos from Govia Thameslink Railway, but the last seven weeks have been a new level of rail hell. Since the GTR franchise is, effectively, run by the Department for Transport, will the right hon. Gentleman shake up the Government so that they finally take some action and show some leadership: action in restoring the Gatwick Express services at Preston Park, which have inexplicably slashed, and leadership in getting rid of the hapless Transport Secretary? The Prime Minister has been reshuffling her Cabinet over the last week; will she reshuffle it a bit more and get that Transport Secretary replaced by—

John Bercow: Thank you very much indeed.

David Lidington: As regards GTR, improvements are simply not happening quickly enough, despite the assurances that the operators have given. We have launched a review of Govia Thameslink, which will report in the next few weeks. If those findings show that Govia is at fault, we will not hesitate to take action, whether through fines, restricting access to future franchises or stripping it of the franchise. Passengers deserve a far better service than they are getting at the moment, and we will hold those operators to account.

Richard Bacon: Albania has one of the highest rates of honour killing in Europe. Will the Government look very closely at the case of Mrs Emiljana Muca, who was staying in the constituency of the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and is now, thanks to the generosity of her therapist, staying in the therapist’s own house in south Norfolk to reduce the risk of self-harm? If she were to be deported to Albania, possibly as early as tomorrow, she might be the victim of an honour killing.

David Lidington: Obviously I do not know all the details of this case, but I am aware that this issue has brought together my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Norwich South and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). The Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister will be happy to meet the Members concerned to discuss the case.

John Bercow: I call Clive Lewis. [Interruption.] Well, that is a great self-denying ordinance on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He says that his question has been answered and that he is therefore satisfied. If that were a template for the House as a whole, just think of the possibilities!

Laura Smith: Will the Minister explain what the Prime Minister’s Brexit proposals would mean for those working for two of the largest employers in my constituency, Bentley Motors and the NHS?

David Lidington: It would be very good news for both of them. In particular, the automotive industry has been arguing for months that we need a deal that ensures frictionless trade with the EU27, and that is what the model we are proposing will deliver.

Neil O'Brien: I strongly welcome the extra £20 billion and the long-term plan for the NHS, but does the First Minister agree that, at a time when local authority budgets are under pressure, it would be attractive to have more pooling of budgets between health and social care?

David Lidington: It is important that the national health service and local authorities work closely together to ensure that community-based care, funded from whichever source, is effective and meets patients’ needs. I know that the new Health Secretary, like his predecessor, is determined to take that forward further.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that his Government have already taken more than £3.5 billion out of the miners’ pension? They are like Philip Green and Maxwell put together. Stop stealing the miners’ pension!

David Lidington: The benefits due from the pension scheme to all former miners have, as I understand it, been paid in full and continue to be paid in full, and the scheme is fully funded to meet those commitments into the future.

AFGHANISTAN

Gavin Williamson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on Afghanistan. The United Kingdom will never forget the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the thousands of innocent women, men and children killed in the atrocity. That barbaric violence prompted the UK, alongside our NATO allies, to enter Afghanistan to ensure that terrorists could not use it as a base from which to attack our citizens at home or abroad.
Before I continue, I want to pay tribute to the efforts of the tens of thousands of brave British men and women who have served in Afghanistan for the past 16 years. We will never forget what they did, particularly those 456 brave men and women who paid the ultimate price and those who suffered life-changing injuries in the line of duty. Their service and sacrifice has not been in vain. As I saw when I visited back in March, not only do millions of ordinary Afghans now have access to clean water, vital medicine and education, which would not have seemed possible less than 20 years ago, not only have they enabled the Afghan people to take charge of their own security, and not only is the capability of the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces growing, but elections are giving a voice to the people of Afghanistan, who are increasingly calling for peace, which would have been unthinkable a short time ago.
Our commitment to Afghanistan remains an enduring one. Although UK combat operations ended in 2014, our troops are playing a key role in NATO’s Resolute Support mission by leading the Kabul security force. They are performing a vital role in training, advising and assisting the Afghan national army and air force and developing the nationwide security structures that will strengthen Afghanistan’s democracy. They have a quick reaction force that works alongside the Afghan army to provide urgent help in Kabul if and when required. They also continue to work alongside their Afghan, Australian, New Zealand and Danish partners to mentor staff at the army officer academy. Since opening in 2013, the academy has held 11 graduations, and more than 3,000 high-quality officers have passed out of that great institution, which is modelled on our Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. They are making a genuine difference in helping the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces to maintain security and keep its citizens safe.
The momentum is with the Afghan forces, and the Taliban cannot win militarily. Ultimately, Afghanistan’s only chance for a better long-term future is through an Afghan-led peaceful negotiation, and significant progress is already being made. The UK welcomes the Government of Afghanistan’s offer to start a discussion on a political process with the Taliban, supported by the recent ceasefire. It is encouraging to see bilateral relations with Pakistan improving, which will help to build wider stability in the region. Critically, parliamentary and presidential elections are to be held over the coming 12 months, giving ordinary people the chance to shape their nation’s destiny very much for the better.
However, despite the growing confidence of the Afghan forces, atrocities such as the appalling attack against the Intercontinental Hotel at the start of the year, which  killed 42 people, demonstrate that the insurgency has proven resilient. It still controls parts of Afghanistan and continues to conduct brutal suicide attacks, killing innocent people. Of equal concern is the fact that terrorist groups such as Daesh are seeking a foothold in the region in order to conduct operations against Britain and other nations. Given the upcoming elections and efforts by the Afghan Government to reach a political settlement, NATO has recognised that now is a critical time to give extra support.
So, in response to a NATO request and in recognition of the professionalism and competence of our armed forces, I can announce today that we will increase the number of troops to support our existing mission, sending an additional 440 personnel in non-combat roles to take the total UK contribution to around 1,100 personnel. That will make the UK the third largest troop contributor to the NATO operation. Around half of the 440 additional personnel will deploy in August, and the remainder will follow no later than February next year. The additional soldiers will initially deploy from the Welsh Guards, which already provides the UK’s contribution to the Kabul security force.
Today’s decision underlines our commitment to the people of Afghanistan. It will help to strengthen the institutions that preserve Kabul’s security and enable the Afghan-led peace process to develop. It will also send a signal to the Taliban that we will not abandon this proud nation and that they cannot simply outwait our departure. It also shows our commitment to NATO, which must remain the cornerstone of our defence in a darker more unpredictable world. Above all, however, it reiterates Britain’s commitment to strengthen the security of our nation. History teaches us that the prize of a more secure Afghanistan is peace and security for all. I commend this statement to the House.

Nia Griffith: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it and join him in paying tribute to all the servicemen and women who have served and are serving in Afghanistan. We remember the 456 men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice there and those who continue to live with injuries sustained during the conflict. We commend the courage shown by our Afghan partners who work under the constant threat posed by insurgents.
As alliance leaders gather in Brussels today, we reaffirm our commitment to NATO and to the range of operations that it supports around the world. The UK has always played its full part in contributing to NATO missions, and we currently have personnel deployed in Kosovo and in Somalia, as well as on the Resolute Support mission. It is right that the skills and professionalism of our armed forces can be used to benefit our partners in Afghanistan by training Afghan forces to the same high standards.
May I ask the Secretary of State for some further detail on today’s announcement? Will he outline the planned timetable for our troops to remain in Afghanistan? Our armed forces have a range of technical skills, so will he say more about the specific work that they will be undertaking? Will the training offered to our Afghan partners focus on specialist activities or continue to be more general? As the Secretary of State will be aware,  there has been some recent concern about the eligibility rules for operational allowances, so will he confirm that troops will continue to receive the allowance for their work in Afghanistan? The Resolute Support mission currently comprises some 16,000 personnel from 39 NATO member states and partners, so will the Secretary of State set out what discussions he has had with NATO allies about upping their commitment to the mission?
The work of the armed forces in Afghanistan must of course form part of a wider strategy to promote good governance there, so what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how it and the Ministry of Defence can support one another? We welcome the U-turn in Government policy on locally employed staff, such as interpreters or drivers, whose work in Afghanistan has been vital to the UK and NATO’s efforts in the country, so will he update the House on the progress that his Department has made on that issue?
Members across the House support the important work of our personnel in Afghanistan, recognising it as part of the process towards reaching a lasting peace settlement, but we must also be clear that the work is quite distinct from the combat operations that ended in 2014. So, finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that the additional troops will be there for training, not in a combat role?

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Lady raises several important points. We want to be in Afghanistan to ensure that we get the right outcomes for the peace process, and it is not possible to put a date on when that will be concluded. However, we continue to work closely with all our allies in the NATO coalition and, most importantly, with the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to try to promote the peace process and bring it forward as rapidly as possible. Work will be undertaken with the Kabul security force, which we have been leading. There is a rapid reaction force element that will support Afghan forces if there are incidents. We have a force there, but it is very much there to support Afghan forces.
All personnel will be in receipt of operational allowance, which is important when we ask service personnel to put themselves in harm’s way. They do such an important and valuable job. I re-emphasise that our work not just with the FCO but with the Department for International Development and other organisations across the international sphere is pivotal in bringing a peaceful resolution to Afghanistan.

Julian Lewis: I understand that this deployment sends a very strong signal, as my right hon. Friend put it, to the Taliban that they will not be allowed to win, but does it send a sufficiently strong signal to the Treasury—an even more formidable opponent—that an uplift in the defence budget towards 2.5%, and eventually 3%, of GDP is necessary to fund our global role adequately?

Gavin Williamson: We are very much focusing on the Taliban with this announcement, which goes to show how Britain can make a difference in the world. We talk about global Britain, and this is a brilliant personification of how we can make a difference in different nations. It  is to our armed forces that our nation so often turns. Whether in dealing with the recent difficulties in Salisbury or in Afghanistan, it is our armed forces that have the capabilities, the knowledge and the ability to deliver consistently for this nation.

Stewart McDonald: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I associate myself with his comments on the personnel and, of course, I extend our thoughts to their families, who I am sure will be having a tough time following this announcement.
May I press the Secretary of State slightly on the timetable? I am not looking for a date or a specific length of time for how long he thinks this increase will last but, in general, does he view this as a long-term or a short-term increase?
May we also have regular updates on Afghanistan? Afghanistan is one area of the world on which attention has perhaps fallen back. We regularly have updates in the Chamber on Syria, which is extremely helpful, and such updates might help us with Afghanistan, too.
The online community through which Daesh spreads its poison is clearly a massive problem. Can the Secretary of State give us any indication as to whether the training and resources going to Afghanistan will be used to seek to tackle Daesh’s online presence to prevent its poison from spreading and gaining the foothold that none of us wants to see?
Finally, on the political process and the offer of talks between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, can the Secretary of State lay out, in general terms, how hopeful he is that those talks will be successful? Where are we in the political process right now?

Gavin Williamson: A number of those questions almost interrelate, especially the hon. Gentleman’s first and last questions. We will not prejudge the timetable, and we will continue working with other NATO allies. We constantly review our force structure not just in Afghanistan but in Operation Shader in Iraq and Syria. We will be constantly reviewing this, and we will be trying to encourage other allies to continue contributing. We have already had discussions with other partners. There will be a conditions-based approach to how long our forces remain there, but in my discussions with the Afghan Government, and in the previous Foreign Secretary’s discussions, there has been a real willingness and eagerness to try to sit around the table.
This was the first time we have ever seen a ceasefire during Ramadan, and it was a very short ceasefire, but it was a chink of light, and it showed that progress can be made. It is important not just for Great Britain but for other nations to support the Afghan Government at this critical time in seizing the opportunity for peace.

Michael Fallon: Although the increase in non-combat support is welcome, and the sacrifice of our own troops there should never be forgotten, should we not also acknowledge the massively greater contribution of the United States to the support of that very fragile democracy, and put on record this week our thanks to President Trump for the increase in United States troop numbers and missions, which help the operations in Afghanistan that help to keep us safe from the threat of transnational terrorism?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the role that the United States has played in doing so much to bring about and promote stability in Afghanistan, and to deal with terrorist threats that can manifest themselves at home. I put on record our appreciation not just for President Trump, but for US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis and for General Nicholson, who has taken such an important and pivotal leadership role in dealing with the insurgency in Afghanistan over the past few years.

Vernon Coaker: In supporting the Defence Secretary’s statement and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), I urge the Defence Secretary to redouble his efforts to explain to the British public why we are doing what we are doing, and how it impacts on the security of our citizens in this country. There is a lot more to be done on that. I know that he is trying, but I urge him to redouble his efforts to explain it to the British people.

Gavin Williamson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, because an unstable Afghanistan leads to threats here in Britain. We saw how the ungoverned spaces that developed in Iraq and Syria were used to promote terrorist attacks on the streets of Britain. We have to deal with that at source, and we will do everything we can to explain to the British people the threat that such an Afghanistan presents.

Thomas Tugendhat: Those of us who served in Afghanistan for many years saw the importance of the coalition of the willing, as it was then. Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO has provided the fundamental underpinning of not just the security of Afghanistan, but our own security? As the summit starts in Brussels today, this is the moment to remember that the only time the article 5 guarantee has been invoked was when the United States was attacked on 9/11. We are therefore essentially reinforcing not just our own security, nor indeed just the security of the people of Afghanistan but, fundamentally, the security of the people of the United States.

Gavin Williamson: The NATO alliance has served every nation incredibly well, and my hon. Friend is right to point out the fact that article 5 has been invoked on only that one occasion following the 9/11 attacks. We must not underestimate the value or utility of NATO, and we must continue to invest in its future to keep us all safe.

Ruth Smeeth: As ever, we owe a debt of gratitude to our armed forces and their families who will be supporting them during this deployment. As the NATO summit continues, what efforts are being made to encourage our other NATO allies to increase their own commitments?

Gavin Williamson: As soon as I complete this statement, I will be going to Brussels to have numerous bilateral meetings with our many NATO allies. We need to hammer home the message that, for NATO to work, we all have to invest in it. We cannot expect one country to carry the burden all the time. We all have to show that willingness to invest. The Prime Minister will be sending  that message, and the United States will also be sending that message. I think that the message is starting to get through.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for delaying his arrival at NATO to make this important announcement himself from the Dispatch Box. I believe this is the largest deployment he has authorised since becoming Defence Secretary.
I share with everybody in the Chamber a great respect for the Welsh Guards, in particular—they will be playing a significant role. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the role that UK aid has played over the past few years, particularly in the education and training of young women and teachers? Do not the role of UK aid and that of our services personnel complement each other in helping to make Afghanistan a more stable country?

Gavin Williamson: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that UK aid and our security forces have to work hand in glove in order to build a viable future for Afghanistan. We have to promote prosperity and education, and we have to support the Afghan Government in delivering an exciting and hopeful future for their people in order to have stability there.

Jamie Stone: May I remind hon. Members that one of my children is serving in the armed forces?
As the Secretary of State said, we will have 1,100 service personnel deployed in Afghanistan, some of whom will face lengthy deployments lasting months or perhaps even longer. By definition, that is stressful for them and their families. Will he therefore assure me that there will be a leave rota in place that will ensure that these people can come home to their families on a regular basis during their deployment in Afghanistan?

Gavin Williamson: We will work closely with the families federations to ensure that that happens. If someone is on a six-month tour, they have the ability to come back for two weeks during that tour. Someone on a nine-month tour has the ability to come back for two sessions of two weeks. Obviously, we will be working with all forces to ensure that that is made available to people.

Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement that our involvement is limited to training. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that there will be no mission creep and no return to combat duties? Drawing hard on the positive scenes in Kabul during the ceasefire, which were inspiring for ordinary people there, will he say, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, that we should increase our efforts to encourage the political process and try to get the two sides talking to each other, as that is the only way we are going to get peace?

Gavin Williamson: I have been clear in my statement about our commitment. We do not have any intention to change what we are doing, as outlined in my statement. The point is that we all want to find a peaceful solution for Afghanistan, and that is why we will continue  to support the Afghan Government in reaching that  peaceful solution.

Jessica Morden: What is the Secretary of State doing with the Home Office to address the issues faced by the Afghan interpreters who have settled here under the Government’s scheme, but are now facing real difficulties in being reunited with their families here because of the normal spousal visa rules? The work of those interpreters was crucial and dangerous, and they deserve better.

Gavin Williamson: As a Department, we have consistently worked closely with the Home Office to ensure that any issues brought to our attention have been resolved. We made a change in our policy just a few weeks ago that we hope will be of further assistance to more of those people who helped and supported the British armed forces. We will continue to review that and provide what help we can.

Desmond Swayne: When I chided President Ghani over his lack of co-operation on the return of failed asylum seekers, he told me that as a war president his priority was the young men and women taking the fight to the Taliban, rather than those who had run away. It was a fair point, was it not?

Gavin Williamson: We recognise the enormous contribution that so many people made—not just those working with British forces, but the Afghan security forces, who are taking the fight to the insurgents every single day. I am talking about not just the Taliban, but Daesh and other states that seek to extend their influence into Afghanistan.

Gregory Campbell: May I associate myself and my colleagues with the Secretary of State’s tribute to those who made the supreme sacrifice, including many from Northern Ireland—I think of several from my constituency? Given the deployment that is about to take place, what steps will he take to ensure that other nation states will share skills and training, as we obviously have, so that there is better future for everyone in Afghanistan?

Gavin Williamson: This is very much a coalition effort. Last year, a number of nations stepped up to increase their effort and deployment in Afghanistan, and we will be pushing this point going forward. We want all nations to make a larger contribution to this NATO mission, and we very much hope to lead by example.

Leo Docherty: Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking members of the 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards from the Aldershot garrison for their continued contribution to the security and stability of Kabul? Will he tell the House his assessment of the link between the Taliban in Afghanistan and elements of Daesh?

Gavin Williamson: I certainly wish to thank all those tens of thousands of service personnel who have contributed to efforts to make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe place for terrorism. As for the link between the Taliban and Daesh, we are seeing more and more Daesh fighters heading from Iraq and Syria into Afghanistan. That is why we need to be making these moves to ensure that they do not create a space in which they are able to operate.

Stephen Doughty: When I was watching yesterday’s fantastic RAF 100 celebrations, I thought very much of the brave RAF pilots with whom I was lucky enough to be flying when I visited Afghanistan in the middle of the conflict. They played an incredible role and we should pay tribute to them. I am also delighted to see the Welsh Guards playing a crucial role in this new deployment. Will the Secretary of State give us clarity on the breakdown of reserves versus regulars in this deployment? What steps does he think will need to be taken to protect civilians, humanitarian workers and minorities in Afghanistan, as we have seen some horrendous attacks against the Hindu, Sikh and other minority communities, which is a point raised by my constituents? What role will this deployment play in increasing stability and security?

Gavin Williamson: We see this deployment as a vital part of increasing stability and security, giving the Afghan forces the confidence to be more forward leaning in dealing with threats, but it is the political process that is so vital. This is about the Afghan Government sending the clear message that they are a Government who represent every part of Afghanistan, and can deliver peace and justice there. The reserves are such an integral part of everything we do. This deployment will be comprised predominantly of regulars, but many, many reservists will be part of it. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to provide further clarity on the breakdown of the numbers.

Bob Blackman: British forces are renowned for not only their military capability, but their ability to capture hearts and minds. Will my right hon. Friend therefore further explain our objectives and also tell us the expertise we will apply that is unique to Britain?

Gavin Williamson: We have been pivotal to creating the ethos and template for the Afghan military academy, giving the country’s armed forces the skills, training and knowledge they need to be able to command forces in often hostile and difficult environments. Those skills, along with what we will bring in terms of command to the Kabul security force, will be vital, because people turn to us as a nation that has an understanding of Afghanistan and the ability to lead other nations.

Christine Jardine: Towards the end of his statement, the Defence Secretary described NATO as a “cornerstone” of our defence in dark and unpredictable times, and he also underlined our commitment to NATO. Will he assure us that that sentiment will be impressed upon the US President at the NATO summit this week? Will he assure us that we will stand by ready to defend our allies in NATO against any vocal attacks?

Gavin Williamson: The unity of allies is the greatest strength of NATO, and I am sure that everyone will sign up to that message.

Robert Courts: I briefly worked in New Zealand, so I am very conscious of the ties between our two countries. Although NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, will the Secretary of State comment on the importance of the wider military alliance?

Gavin Williamson: We have a deep and enduring relationship with not only New Zealand, but all “Five Eyes” nations. We are seeing a deepening of that relationship in terms of not just operations, but the sharing of capabilities. Of course, we had the great news of the purchase of Type 26 frigates by the Royal Australian Navy. I was speaking to my counterpart in New Zealand just at the weekend, and we are looking at how we can operate more together to deal with the threats that are emerging in the world.

Jonathan Edwards: I echo the comments of other Members who have expressed our thoughts for the families of the Welsh Guards facing deployment.
Yesterday, frustrated by the lack of progress, the US Administration announced that they were going to conduct a comprehensive review of their Afghanistan strategy. The Secretary of State will be aware of Trump’s initial policy to withdraw from Afghanistan when he assumed the presidency. Given that we have now been at war in Afghanistan for 17 years, does this latest deployment indicate that in reality the current strategy is failing?

Gavin Williamson: Over the past few years, we have seen the United States commitment to Afghanistan grow, along with the pressure that it is putting on other partners to contribute to a political solution. The true solution to the situation in Afghanistan is a political process, and that is what we, NATO and the United States are promoting.

James Heappey: Just over 13 years ago, I deployed to Kabul on my first Afghanistan tour, and I found it very rewarding indeed. I wish the Welsh Guards well. The frustration during that first tour was the imbalance in commitment and risk appetite between the NATO countries that made up the Kabul Multinational Brigade. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not just numbers and budgets that underpin NATO, but member states’ willingness actually to deploy their troops with rules of engagement and a risk appetite that allows them to contribute fully to alliance operations?

Gavin Williamson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his assessment of what is needed for resolute support work and to operate in the best possible way. We need those common rules of engagement, and we have to be forward-leaning to ensure that we give the Afghan Government as much support as is needed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Eleanor Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to introduce a Bill to re-establish the Secretary of State’s legal duty as to the National Health Service in England and to make provision about the other duties of the Secretary of State in that regard; to make provision for establishing Integrated Health Boards and about the administration and accountability of the National Health Service in England; to make provision about ending private finance initiatives in the National Health Service in England; to exclude the National Health Service from international trade agreements; to repeal sections 38 and 39 of the Immigration Act 2014; and for connected purposes.
As we celebrate 70 years since the NHS was founded, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to present to the House this Bill on the reinstatement of the NHS. It was founded in 1948 by a Labour Government, who recognised that, as Nye Bevan said:
“No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.”
The Bill honours that founding vision of the national health service.
In short, the Bill proposes to fully restore the NHS in England as an accountable public service. It is intended to give back to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the duty to provide services, including hospitals, medical and nursing services, primary care, and mental health and community services. It would integrate health services under the Secretary of State, while allowing the delegation of public health services to local authorities. The intent behind the Bill is to take private profits out of the NHS by abolishing the purchaser-provider split and repealing the competition and marketisation provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is intended to make sure that the NHS is properly funded and ready to deliver the comprehensive care that people need now and in future.
The Bill is about getting private, profit-making companies out of NHS service provision, ending contracting out and reversing nearly 30 years of marketisation. It would end private practice and pay beds in NHS hospitals, and end contracts for GP services with commercial companies. It would create truly accountable local NHS planning, re-establishing public bodies capable of providing integrated services and accountable to local communities. The Bill would abolish NHS England, clinical commissioning groups, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. It would scrap private finance initiatives and ensure that NHS assets and land remain in public ownership for future generations. The Bill is intended to make sure that no part of our NHS is up for sale, and would protect it from any forthcoming global trade agreement designed to asset-strip its resources.
For decades, core NHS values have been undermined. I was a nurse for 40 years before entering Parliament and saw this first hand. I was also a member of Unison and fought against it. We might hear that there is no privatisation because the NHS remains free, but believe me, it is being privatised. The fact that services are free to patients does not mean that they are not run by private companies for profit. That profit does not go  back into the NHS. The money that we pay through our taxes should be spent on patient care and not go to shareholders. These are our hospitals, paid for out of our taxes and run by our NHS staff; they are not the Government’s to give away.
The Government downplay the amount spent by the NHS in the private sector but, according to the NHS Support Federation, in the year to April 2017, some £7.1 billion-worth of NHS clinical contracts was awarded through an NHS tendering process. The 2012 Act forced NHS contracts out to competitive tender in the marketplace, allowing private companies to cherry-pick profitable NHS services. Since that Act came into force, spending on non-NHS providers has totalled around £25 billion. That undermines NHS services and affects staff pay and conditions. The Government line is that only a trivial 7.6% of NHS services are run privately. According to the NHS Support Federation, for-profit companies won £3.1 billion-worth of new contracts in 2016-17. That is 43% of the total value of those advertised. The number of contracts awarded to the private sector has increased sevenfold since the 2012 Act came into force.
Under current arrangements, clinical commissioning groups do not have to serve a particular geographic area and are not required to tend to all illnesses and conditions. This is not the NHS that I understand and love. In some areas, certain treatments—such as hip and knee replacements and cataract operations—are already being rationed. It is vital to reinstate the Secretary of State’s duty, to provide the Government accountability needed to maintain a comprehensive NHS. An integrated structure would also mean we would have an opportunity to change the way social care is addressed. The NHS is for everyone, including the elderly and those with complex needs. Integrated health services and social services would be a welcome return to how the NHS previously gave care to those in need.
The Bill addresses the impact of the 2012 Act’s raising of the amount of income hospitals were permitted to make from private sources. That has shot up from  2% to 49%, which means that an NHS hospital could choose to devote 49% of its resources to private patients. That could be 49% of its precious beds. Such a scenario is almost upon us. For example, the Royal Marsden, with beds used by both NHS and private patients, has seen its income from private patients rise by 105% to £91.1 million—nearly a third of its total funding. That cannot have happened without an impact on NHS patients.
NHS trusts are almost £l billion in deficit, and it does not take much imagination to believe that NHS trust managers will see further increases in private patient  care as a solution to this dire situation. The impact on NHS patients is obvious: it is the very embodiment of a two-tier system. With this ideology directed at it, no wonder the NHS is in crisis. The road we are travelling on is leading to a much diminished service. It is leading to a US-style health insurance system. That is not what I signed up to in 1977 when I started my training; I signed up to provide love, support and care to patients and their families, treating them all equally, whether they had money or not.
The Bill would impose a duty on the Treasury to minimise—and, if possible, end—the expenditure of public money on private finance initiatives in the NHS. Government Members might come back at me and say that PFI was wholeheartedly embraced by the previous Labour Government; well, not by me, and not on my watch. I was with Unison, fighting PFI every step of the way. Ending expenditure on PFI would contribute to returning the NHS to its founding principle and signal a return to the public service ethos that the NHS is famous for and that drives everyone involved to deliver the highest standard of care.
As a former nurse who is immensely proud of the NHS, I thank and pay tribute to the many patients, nurses, doctors, trade unions and campaigners across the country who have worked tirelessly to combat its privatisation. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for the work that they have done on this Bill. The Bill has been created with the Labour Front-Bench leadership team and we will continue to work together on its future development with campaigners, unions, professionals and stakeholders.
Although, apparently, Nye Bevan did not actually say these words, everything that he ever said and did suggests that he wholeheartedly believed in them:
“The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to fight for it.”
I have that faith. I left nursing and entered politics to fight for the NHS and to help to save it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Eleanor Smith, Bambos Charalambous, Mr Jim Cunningham, Caroline Lucas, Luke Pollard, Jo Platt, Matt Western, Laura Smith, Stephen Timms, Thelma Walker, Mohammad Yasin and Dr Rupa Huq present the Bill.
Eleanor Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October and be printed (Bill 250).

OPPOSITION DAY - [16TH ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S HANDLING OF UNIVERSAL CREDIT

Margaret Greenwood: I beg to move,
That this House censures the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton, for her handling of the roll-out of universal credit and her response to the NAO report, Rolling Out Universal Credit; notes that the Department for Work and Pensions’ own survey of claimants published on 8 June 2018 showed that 40 per cent of claimants were experiencing financial hardship even nine months into a claim and that 20 per cent of claimants were unable to make a claim online; further censures the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for not pausing the roll-out of universal credit in the light of this evidence; and calls on the Government to reduce the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ ministerial salary to zero for four weeks.
The findings of the report “Rolling out Universal Credit” by the National Audit Office, published on 15 June, were damning: universal credit is failing to achieve its aims and there is currently no evidence to suggest that it ever will; it may cost more than the benefits system that it replaces; the Department for Work and Pensions will never be able to measure whether it has achieved its stated goal of increasing employment; and it has not delivered value for money and it is uncertain that it ever will.
The NAO report raised real concerns about the impact on claimants, particularly the delays in payments, which are pushing people into debt, rent arrears and even forcing them to turn to food banks to survive. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions took nearly a week to come to the House to respond to the report on what is the Government’s flagship social security programme and a major public project. When she did so on 21 June, on a Thursday when she knew that many Members would not be able to be here, she undermined the report rather than address the extremely serious issues that it raised.
Her approach was shockingly complacent. It was as though she was oblivious to the hardship that so many people are suffering. She referred to universal credit as an example of “leading-edge technology” and “agile working practices”. She said that it was
“a unique example of great British innovation”
She said:
“Countries such as New Zealand, Spain, France and Canada have met us”—
the Department for Work and Pensions—
“to see UC, to watch and learn what is happening for the next generation of benefit systems.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 491.]
I do hope that they will listen to the testimony given by our Members today.

Simon Hoare: I have listened to what the hon. Lady has said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the courtesy to come to the House to apologise. Mr Speaker accepted that apology. Has the Labour Front-Bench team the good grace to accept it, too?

Margaret Greenwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will be aware, and I will cover this further on in my speech, that she apologised for one of the three aspects for which an apology was necessary.

David Hanson: Last week, on 5 July, following my question at Work and Pensions questions on Monday, the Secretary of State said that she had made an error and wanted to report it to the House—as reported in column 500 of Hansard. Why does my hon. Friend think that it took 48 hours for her to come to the House when a written apology, or an apology on the Monday or Tuesday, could have done the job? Was it because the National Audit Office published its report at 11 o’clock on Wednesday?

Margaret Greenwood: My right hon. Friend raises such an important point. I was as shocked as he was to hear the Secretary of State say that it was when she had left the Chamber that she realised her mistake. She should have replied that afternoon. He is quite right on that point.
The Secretary of State adopted the same approach at Work and Pensions questions, as has been noted, leading the head of the National Audit Office, Sir Amyas Morse, to take the extraordinary step of writing an open letter to her, taking issue with a number of claims that she had made in response to the report. The three key claims that he took issue with were, first, that the NAO report said that the roll-out of universal credit should be speeded up; secondly, that the report
“didn’t take account of changes made by the government in the Budget”;
and, thirdly, that universal credit is working.
Let us just think about the significance of this. The National Audit Office is an independent body that scrutinises public spending before Parliament. It is responsible for auditing central Government Departments. Its reports matter. I shall take each claim in turn.
On 21 June, the Secretary of State stated on several occasions that the report had said that the Government should speed up the roll-out of universal credit. She repeated that claim at Work and Pensions oral questions on 2 July, when questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn and me. Of course, the NAO report does not say anywhere that the roll-out should be speeded up. In fact, it says very clearly that the Government should
“ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes.”

Ruth George: This is an incredibly important point. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are seeing 100,000 households rolling on to universal credit this year and 200,000 next year, with 40% in hardship, we are talking about millions of real people, real families, whose lives are being affected by the speed of this roll-out?

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an issue of the utmost importance and the Government must take note.

Bim Afolami: Does the hon. Lady accept that the NAO report does not take into account what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of  State and the Department have done recently in line with their “listen and learn” approach with the roll-out of universal credit?

Margaret Greenwood: I will come on to that point in my remarks.

Desmond Swayne: The report, rather perversely in my view, complains that the roll-out has been too slow. Is it unreasonable for us to assume that it would like us to hurry up?

Margaret Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman should go back and re-read the report.
On 4 July, the Secretary of State finally admitted that she had “inadvertently” misled Parliament in claiming that the roll-out should be speeded up. This matters not just because she admitted that she had misled Parliament, but, as I will explain later, because the Government have sharply accelerated the roll-out of universal credit since May and because, from next year it, they will start a managed migration of 3.9 million people on legacy benefits across to universal credit.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence on the use of food banks needs to be urgently looked at before the roll-out can continue?

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely pertinent remark. The prevalence of food banks in our society is a source of shame on this Government.

Jim Cunningham: We have to put this whole debate on universal credit in context. In at least two general elections, the Government said in their manifestos that they would cut £12 billion off the national health service. What we have is a benefit system that is tailor-made for cuts and not for the benefit of the people who receive it.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about cuts.
The Secretary of State’s second claim was that the report did not take into account the impact of recent changes made by the Government. This is curious.

Stephen Timms: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend is saying. She has already quoted the National Audit Office report. From that quotation, does it not sound to her as though the NAO’s view is that this project should be paused and fixed?

Margaret Greenwood: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am going to make some progress now because there have been so many interventions, although I am pleased that so many people are here today.
The head of the NAO said clearly in his letter of 4 July:
“Our report was fully agreed with senior officials in your Department. It is based on the most accurate and up-to-date information from your department. Your department confirmed this to me in writing on…6 June and we then reached final agreement on the report on…8 June.”
The Secretary of State refused to back down and said again in a letter to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)—dated only yesterday that, although she had full confidence in the NAO and its head,
“that does not mean the Department will always agree with all of the judgements reached by the NAO.”
Will she tell us now, once and for all, whether or not her Department agreed the report with the NAO in writing on 8 June?

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Greenwood: I am not going to give way; I want to make some progress. Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed—

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Greenwood: I am not going to give way and I would point out that the right hon. Gentleman has called the report “shoddy”, so excuse me if I continue. Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed that universal—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. If the hon. Lady does not want to give way, it is completely up to her.

Margaret Greenwood: Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed that universal credit is working.

Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a custom in this place, out of common courtesy, that when one hon. Member references another—either by name or by constituency—and that Member then seeks to intervene, the request is usually acceded to?

Rosie Winterton: It is absolutely up to the hon. Lady whether to take any interventions. Hon. Members really should not be interrupting speeches with points of order over and again. It is becoming a bit of a habit, and not a very healthy one.

Margaret Greenwood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State claimed that universal credit is working. The head of the NAO said in his letter that this is unproven. The DWP’s own survey of claimants under the full service published in June shows that just under half of all claimants were unable to register their claim online unassisted, a quarter were not able to submit their claim online at all and 40% were falling behind with bills or experiencing real financial difficulties, sometimes even nine months into their claim. A recent freedom of information request revealed that a fifth of universal credit claims are failing at an early stage because claimants are not able to navigate the online system. These people are likely to be among the most vulnerable in our society, and this Government are failing them.

Anneliese Dodds: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Precisely on that point—which I have raised repeatedly with Ministers, but to no avail—does she accept that the Government’s position of not allowing advice agencies to help people with their claims after they changed the implied consent  rules is shown to be completely bankrupt when such a high proportion of people cannot get their claims sorted out online?

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Greenwood: I have three minutes of my speech left, so I will take no more interventions.
The Secretary of State claimed that the NAO report did not take account of the impact of recent Government changes. However, there have been no recent changes to support people in making and managing their claim online, and we know that the Government’s universal support programme receives only limited funding. The payment delays that people are experiencing are shocking.
The DWP this week published figures on the length of payment delays for new claims due in February. The Library estimates that nearly 13,000 people were not paid in full on time and 7,500 people did not receive any payment on time at all. In December, two thirds of disabled people with limited capability for work were not paid in full on time, and last year 113,000 people—a quarter of new claims—were not paid in full on time. This is outrageous. Why were they not paid in full on time and what is the Secretary of State going to do about it? These are people on low incomes who often do not have any savings to rely on in these circumstances. The delays are causing real hardship for people, leading them to build up debt and rent arrears.
The Residential Landlords Association has made it clear that private landlords are increasingly reluctant to rent to people claiming universal credit. The National Housing Federation this week reported that nearly three quarters of housing association tenants in England claiming universal credit are in debt, compared with less than a third of all other tenants. The Government claim that no one should have to suffer hardship because advances are available, although, as the NAO said, the Government
“has not measured the impact on claimants or assessed how much hardship Universal Credit claimants suffer.”
Should it not be the Government’s duty to understand the effectiveness of their own social security system?
Advances have to be paid back, often on top of debts for utility bills and council tax arrears built up while waiting for the initial payment. One of the Secretary of State’s senior officials told the Public Accounts Committee on Monday this week that the average monthly repayment of £35 a week is “not eye-wateringly large”. Maybe not to him, but what about someone on very low income struggling to cope with basic household bills? I have received so much testimony from people up and down the country on this issue. I have heard stories of people being sanctioned because they have accompanied their mother to a cancer treatment session and stories of people with special needs not receiving the support that they should.
I put it to the Government that their policy of managed migration of just under 4 million people on legacy benefits across to universal credit that is due next year risks huge problems for the people who transfer. Although they will receive transitional protection, it will only last  for two years, and the DWP’s current plan is that those people will have to make a new universal credit claim. This could bring chaos.
The NAO has made it absolutely clear that the Government should not expand universal credit until they were clear that the system could cope with higher claimant volumes. If the Government fail to get this right, there will be many people whose lives are made a misery by a benefit that is meant to support them. That is why the Secretary of State’s inadvertently misleading claim that the NAO report says that the roll-out should be speeded up matters so much. Will she give an assurance that the Government will not start managed migration until it is clear that universal credit and her Department can cope with it?
Universal credit was created to simplify the social security system. Clearly, its complexity is so often defeating both claimants and the staff administering it. It was meant to lift people out of poverty; instead it is pushing many into debt. The Government claim that the Opposition are scaremongering whenever we raise issues about the suffering of our constituents. Well, the Residential Landlords Association, the National Housing Federation, Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have all raised major concerns about universal credit.
The Secretary of State repeatedly claims her Department is testing and learning, but this testing and learning is using people like guinea pigs. This is unacceptable. Where is the dignity? Her Government are causing hardship with scant regard for the devastation to families up and down the country. She must now take responsibility for the real suffering being caused by the roll-out of this flawed programme. She must call a halt to universal credit and put forward a credible plan to fix its many failings before many more people suffer.

Rosie Winterton: The Question is as on the Order Paper. I call the Secretary of State.

Esther McVey: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for clearing that up—that we are discussing the Question as is on the Order Paper.
We are introducing a new benefits system to assist people into work in this new technological era—a system that will support people so that they can become more economically secure and progress in life. We are introducing universal credit to remove the problems of the old benefits system that we inherited and that put barriers in the way of people fulfilling their potential.

Ruth Cadbury: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Nick Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Esther McVey: I will not give way just yet, but I will in a moment.
There used to be the 16-hour rule, which we all know about. That barrier was stopping people working more hours, and then they would have to go through the disruption of coming off benefit to start another benefit.  People on employment and support allowance could be faced with a choice between financial support and work, although we know that thousands of them would have liked to have worked as well. Once people were in work, they were too often caught up by another set of rules and hours for tax credits. Do we not all remember and know all too well the problems with tax credits, given the hundreds of thousands of letters that we received?
Universal credit cuts through all of that by bringing the six different benefits together and replacing them with a single system whereby claimants receive tailored support to help them into work—a system whereby claimants only have to deal with one organisation and a system that ensures that it always pays to be in work. This is what we are doing. Let me relay again how many people we have now helped into work since 2010—over 3.3 million people, or 1,000 more every day, through the support we are giving. The roll-out is slow. Where we need to slow down we have done, and where we have needed to make changes we have done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Esther McVey: I will give way, but I think we just need a moment to reflect. This is about getting people into work, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Liam Byrne: The Secretary of State will remember that back in 2013 I warned that this was not a benefit that was ready for wide-scale roll-out. In my Birmingham constituency, we have the DWP telling my constituents that they cannot apply for housing credit through universal credit. They get sent to Birmingham City Council, which then sends them back to the DWP. There is still a level of chaos on the frontline that meant that one of my constituents told me that not only could they not afford to eat, she could not afford to put socks on her children’s feet.

Esther McVey: And this from the man who said there was no money left. But to be fair, he actually has some honour, because that was correct.
Before we go any further—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Esther McVey: Hang on, everybody.
The comments that are being made today are the comments that we had to check for accuracy, which were sent out to scare people just before Christmas. An email from the Labour party on 6 December said that
“40,000 children will wake up in poverty on Christmas Day”.
It also sent out a video—checking the accuracy here—saying that
“millions of people are faced with poverty, debt and eviction as a result of Universal Credit”
and asking us to pause and fix universal credit. This went to the UK Statistics Authority, which said:
“It is clearly important that statements by a political party should be fully supported by statistics and sources…We do not believe”
they were. As I am in a generous mood today, will Opposition Front Benchers take this opportunity to apologise? They have not so far. It took me two days to apologise. Would they like to apologise?

Margaret Greenwood: Will the Secretary of State apologise for the two points she has failed yet to apologise for to the head of the National Audit Office?

Esther McVey: The answer is no, they will not be apologising.
As it is about apologies today—and, as I said, I made my apology straight away—let us go back to another apology. I was hoping that the shadow Chancellor would be here today, because I was waiting for years for an apology for the lynching comment against me. Of course, we never got that apology. As the Opposition spokesperson knows all about that campaign in Wirral West, perhaps she would like to apologise on behalf of her party.

Margaret Greenwood: The point that the Secretary of State makes had nothing to do with my campaign in Wirral West in 2015.

Esther McVey: So that is twice we have not had an apology from the Opposition.
I now move back to tax credits. Tax credits were introduced in 2003 with an error rate, I am told, of 10% to 14%. Some people call this Brown’s burden—or maybe it is just Labour’s burden. I offer this opportunity now: does anybody on the Opposition Front Bench want to apologise for those tax credits and the mistakes therein? Whether it is on scaremongering or on one of the reasons we brought in universal credit—the failings of the tax credits system—we see that nobody is prepared to apologise.
It is not that we cannot all make mistakes. We have all made mistakes on various scales. But for the only mistake I ever made in this House, I just apologised. Most people think you do that in everyday life, but in this House the Opposition do not apologise, whereas I am prepared to do so.

Helen Whately: A constituent of mine recently asked when they would be able to move on to universal credit because they had heard very good things about the support and flexibility it could provide. Is it not important to continue to roll out universal credit to give more people the opportunity to go on to a better benefit?

Esther McVey: My hon. Friend is quite right. She is referring to the real people who are going on this benefit who want an opportunity to have a chance. This is not about a politician who is here to oppose—and I understand that—but people who say, “We’d like to go on this new benefit and we’d like to have a simpler system.”
The motion on the Order Paper says that “20% of claimants” are
“unable to make a claim online”.
Well, I will break down the figures so that we all know what happened here. The claimants survey shows that 98% of people successfully make a claim online. Here are the figures that underpin that: 54% make their claim on their own; 21% had help from others, including organisations like Citizens Advice and family members; and 20%—I am assuming that this is the 20% the Opposition are talking about—had help from jobcentre staff. That is what this benefit system is about—people  need help and support. We know that some of them might not be able to use IT. We have brought in this system because in this modern age where technology is vital, people can only get a job if they can go online. We are now going to provide that universal support to allow people to go online. We have put £200 million into local authorities to help and support people with budgeting and IT. I will offer Opposition Front Benchers the opportunity to apologise for putting out this information. Would they like to take that opportunity now? It seems they are not doing to be doing that now.
I go back to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) about fact checks in the Department and what happened there. He is looking for the timeline. I left here having checked what was going on. I then asked the Department to go through the various bits that we did together and said that there were various elements within the letter. That night, I checked it again, and so it was Tuesday when I asked for permission to come to the House. The timeline on which I was allowed to do it—he is quite right—was 48 hours later, but actually it was Tuesday when I asked to come to the House. I then met Amyas Morse on Monday and we discussed the various elements of the report. As I said, I have faith in the organisation—of course I do—but that does not mean that you always have to come to the same conclusion—the same judgments—from a report. I am rather surprised—or maybe not—that so many Opposition Members talk about auditors in another way. People can look at different sets of facts and come to a different result, which is what we did.
I said it was unfortunate that the NAO could not have taken into account all the impacts of those changes; that was not anything against the organisation. Those changes came in in January, February and April, so the NAO could not have taken them into account. I was not casting any aspersions on the organisation. It is interesting to note that paragraph 2.34 of the NAO’s report says:
“It is too early to assess the impact of this change.”
It says that in the report. In that instance, which is what we were talking about, it was too early to have felt the impacts of all those changes, and that is the crunch of it. When I misspoke, I corrected myself, but the impacts of the changes could not have been felt.

Catherine West: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. What does she make of the evidence about people who have fallen off benefits and are not good on computers, one of whom is sleeping in a tent in a bin chamber on the Vincent Square estate in my constituency but now has to be moved on? These people have no help. They do not have what it takes for this difficult set of benefit rules.

Esther McVey: If people have fallen on hard times, we reach out to and support them. If that person is not getting the support, I ask the hon. Lady to work with me. We can go to the local jobcentre to see what has happened, because that is not right, and ensure that he gets his support and that we get him into housing and get him the benefits he needs. Rather than someone standing up and saying those things, let us work together, across the Floor of the House, to help that person who needs it. Is she prepared to work with me to help that person?

Catherine West: This is a matter for the public record. It has been on my Twitter feed in the last 48 hours. This is how people are living day in, day out—in a tent in a bin chamber.

Esther McVey: I asked the hon. Lady if she would work with me. All I needed from her—I could not have said it in a more imploring way—was a yes or no, and she felt unable to say yes. She should have said yes.
We have been through what this benefit is about and how it is supporting people. It is about having a work coach. It is about personalised support. It is about having a universal support package. It is about getting more people into work: as I have said so many times, 1,000 more people into work every day since 2010. That is what it is about. The prize will be a cultural shift in welfare. The impact has got to be positive for each and every one of us. It has got to be about getting more people into work. It has got to be about a simpler benefit system. As we proceed with the roll-out, we look, we learn and we change. Even since January, I have listened and learned, whether that was about kinship carers, 18 to 21-year-olds or the latest change for the severe disability premium.
When we brought in the changes at the Budget—£1.5 billion-worth of changes, or thereabouts—to remove the waiting time and offer extra support through a two-week run-over and the advance, the Opposition voted against that. They would have denied vulnerable people £1.5 billion and all those changes. I will ask them now: do they apologise for that? No. Again, we do not have an apology for not wanting those significant changes for disabled people.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. She was talking about co-operation. Is she aware that in King’s Lynn, the DWP has moved into local council offices and now has a fantastic open-plan office that is a centre of excellence for service delivery? I visited last week, and every person I spoke to was 100% supportive of universal credit. They cannot wait for it to be rolled out. They have had nothing but good experiences in the offices around the country that they have visited, so they support the Secretary of State 100%.

Esther McVey: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment.
This is what it is about, and I keep saying that. It is not about scaremongering. It is not about saying things even the UK Statistics Authority says is scaremongering. It is not about making people’s journey to claim benefit even more difficult. We want to make the journey to claim benefit easier for people. While the Opposition would not apologise for voting to stop that £1.5 billion-worth of support, we now have changes coming through to support people through the severe disability premium. I want to ask the Opposition: will they be voting with the Government to make sure we support those people, or will they take a stance by voting against? We have no answer again.

Neil Coyle: You took the disability premium away!

Rosie Winterton: Order. Mr Coyle, calm down. Moderation and good temper governs our debate. You are not showing much sign of that.

Esther McVey: We are bringing in a new benefit system. We have helped 1,000 people a day into work since 2010. We have said that where we have got it wrong, we will change it and put it right, which we have done in instances where we felt it was wrong. The aim is to get people prepared for a modern technological age so that they can engage in work, and we will support people who cannot as best we can. That is what a compassionate party does—help people into work and support those who cannot work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, colleagues will be aware that a large number of Members wish to speak, so I will have to impose a five-minute time limit immediately.

Neil Gray: I will take that on board, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for your comments in this debate.
I should begin by welcoming the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) back to the DWP. Even though it contributed to his return to Government, there surely can be no one gladder of the Chequers version of “Deal or No Deal” than the Work and Pensions Secretary. For a few days, the pressure to fall on her sword was off her, as her extreme Brexiteer chums climbed the altar of vanity to fall on theirs.
But now we must return from the Brexit bubble theatrics to the real world, where we have this week another set of reports following hot on the heels of the National Audit Office report, all condemning the current incarnation of universal credit. The Secretary of State’s position has been called into question, not just because of the failings of universal credit, but also because of her tin-eared response to the externally and expertly provided facts and criticism. I listened carefully to her speech just now, and it appears that there is still little contrition.
We come to the Secretary of State’s response to the National Audit Office report, which is the subject of the motion before us. We know that the NAO report blew a hole as wide as the Clyde in the Government’s defence of universal credit. The Government say that universal credit is about getting people into work quicker and will lead to 200,000 more people in work. The NAO says:
“The Department will never be able to measure whether Universal Credit actually leads to 200,000 more people in work, because it cannot isolate the effect of Universal Credit from other economic factors in increasing employment.”
The Government say that universal credit will be cheaper to administer and reduce fraud. The NAO says that the DWP
“does not know whether Universal Credit is reducing fraud”
and:
“It is not clear that Universal Credit will cost less to administer than the existing benefits system.”
The Government say they will save £8 billion from universal credit, but the NAO says that figure
“depends on some unproven assumptions”,
and that such benefits “remain theoretical”.
The NAO has directly contradicted the Government on the core aims of, and the central defences offered by the Government on, universal credit. It is therefore no wonder that the Secretary of State was so desperate to discredit the NAO on the Monday before last. For instance, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) about the NAO recommending a pause in the roll-out, the Secretary of State said:
“The NAO made clear quite the opposite: it said that we need to continue with universal credit. It was also concerned that it was rolling out too slowly and said that actually we should increase what we are doing. So what the right hon. Gentleman says is absolutely not what the NAO said.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 8.]
Actually, the NAO report said that the DWP should:
“Ensure that operational performance and costs improve sustainably before increasing caseloads through managed migration. It should formally assess the readiness of automation and digital systems to support increased caseloads before migration begins, and ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes.”
These are not debating points; these are facts and quotes in black and white. We have a Work and Pensions Secretary who is either unable to grasp the facts or unwilling to accept them.

David Hanson: When the Secretary of State said that to me in the House, some of my constituents were watching the proceedings, and they believed that I was factually incorrect in my comments. The Secretary of State had an opportunity to apologise to me, but she has yet to do so in writing, and this was all before the NAO issued its report. The question for me, which I raised in my intervention earlier, is: why did the Secretary of State wait 48 hours to put the record straight?

Neil Gray: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. The honourable thing for the Secretary of State to do would have been to apologise directly to him for what might have been a slur on his character and reputation.
This is important, because we are talking about the central—the flagship—social security policy of this Government, which has been criticised in report after report for failing those it should be helping. We are talking about people who are living in poverty as a result. Getting the facts wrong—not just failing on a debating point, but misquoting what is there in black and white—is very serious whichever way we cut it. The House should remember that the last Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), recently resigned for something very similar.

Michelle Donelan: The hon. Gentleman talks about facts, but is it not a fact that 83% of claimants are happier on universal credit, and they are more likely to be in a job within the first six months? Is it not a fact that universal credit is an opportunity for people to get back into work?

Neil Gray: On the last point, the NAO entirely contradicted the hon. Lady’s point. One fact I would relay back to her is that the Government’s own figures—this is from the DWP—show that 40% of universal credit claimants are living in poverty and struggling to make ends meet. I hope she will consider that fact as we build  towards the autumn Budget, when I hope we can form a coalition around calling on the Chancellor to invest in universal credit.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. When we talk about getting people back into work, we lose track of the fact that people who have serious illnesses and will never work again are facing delays in their personal independence payments, but nothing seems to happen about it. I have a number of cases like that, and if the Secretary of State wants, I will send them to her so that she can see this for herself.

Neil Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes some very fair points. We of course know from the recent statistics published by the DWP that 59% of claimants impacted by the two-child policy on tax credits and by universal credit are already in work. These are facts, and the Government should be considering them.
This is not of course the first time that this Government have tried to dismiss evidence placed before them showing the failures of universal credit. When the Trussell Trust said that food bank use was higher in areas where universal credit had been rolled out, UK Ministers described its evidence as “anecdotal”. In actual fact, the evidence came from 425 food banks across these isles, delivering 1.3 million three-day food parcels a year.
This week, the four housing association federations of these isles have called on the UK Government to fix the “fundamentally flawed” universal credit system. With colleagues, I met the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations this morning, and it revealed the scale and linkage of debt with universal credit. It is startling, and it is evidence-based. Ministers have replied that issues with debt were complicated and could not be linked to a single source, in spite of the evidence in front of them saying that nearly three quarters or 73% of tenants on universal credit are in debt, compared with less than a third or 29% of all other tenants.

Angela Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neil Gray: I will give way one last time, because I am conscious that others want to speak.

Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman see, as I do, a pattern of reluctance on the part of this Government to collect evidence and information precisely so that they can deny the effects of universal credit, and somehow pretend that the evidence that is accumulating is anecdotal?

Neil Gray: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the central tenets of what the NAO called for in its report was that that type of evidence gathering needs to be done.

Paul Masterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Neil Gray: I said that that was the last intervention I would take.
The evidence is there—it is in black and white—with the clear researched correlation between universal credit and housing debt. It is not even close; any responsible  organisation, never mind a Government, would look at that type of key performance indicator and say, “Right, how do we fix this, because it’s failing?” Why are this Government so determined to push back, ignore the evidence, plough on in the face of the evidence and pile more misery on more families? That is what is behind these statistics—people and families, such as the two constituents in tears at my Airdrie surgery a week past on Friday. For some reason, on universal credit this Government ignore the evidence and the lived experience, but are happy to deceive and never accept responsibility.
It is to responsibility that I turn in directly addressing the thrust of Labour’s motion. Labour has suggested that it tabled this motion to stop the Secretary of State’s salary for a month to replicate the experiences of people on universal credit who are sanctioned and, I suppose, so that the Secretary of State had a chance to make the same choices as those on whom she inflicts her policies, to paraphrase the right hon. Lady. The universal credit sanctions regime is utterly punitive, and in the words of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, is akin to “destitution by design”. I was therefore hesitant last night, when contemplating the motion, about whether we should support it or rise above the deplorable conduct of the Secretary of State’s sanctioning regime. For the reasons I have already outlined, however, I think the Secretary of State should be considering her position.
Of course, a new Secretary of State will not necessarily fix the problems with universal credit. Perhaps the right hon. Lady could redeem herself by honouring the original concept of universal credit on which she worked, in a previous role, with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). He of course resigned because the Treasury was cutting universal credit to ribbons. In spite of this motion, I reiterate the calls I have made in the past about working with the Government to improve universal credit. I am sure all Members on both sides of the House would take such an opportunity should a genuinely listening ear be afforded to us.
Of course, the Government are not short of suggestions from expert agencies and the third sector. We have already heard about the suggestions of the NAO, which I have not actually heard the Secretary of State comment on or respond to. Those include improving the tracking and transparency of progress towards universal credit’s intended benefits, and working with delivery partners to establish a shared evidence base on how UC is working in practice, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned.
Housing associations have talked this week about issues, on top of the process improvements, that the Government could easily sort out, such as getting payments on time or allowing housing associations and other advocacy organisations to negotiate on behalf of recipients. Housing associations want implicit consent restored and the two-child limit and benefit cap to be scrapped, and they also want to see work allowances restored and the self-employed protected. At my meeting with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations this morning, I was reminded of just how unusual it is for the four federations to campaign collectively on such an issue, given the devolved nature of housing policy. That is how seriously they see the threat of the further roll-out of universal credit without significant changes.
We in the Scottish National party have talked about allowing people the choice of split payments, restoring work allowances to honour the founding principles of UC and sorting out the disability elements. This call has been echoed by Scope, which wants disability premiums to be restored. It says that, once the Government transitions run out, a single disabled person who receives the severe disability premium and is in the ESA work-related activity group could lose up to £4,745.40 a year on universal credit.
The point of universal credit was to make social security easier to navigate: it does not. It was supposed to be easier and cheaper to administer: it is not. It was supposed to make work pay: it does not. In reality, the cuts being made to universal credit may be saving the Treasury on the DWP budget line, but they will be costing it significantly more in other areas. With worsening mental health, it is costing NHS services. In increased requirement for conditionality and cuts to income, it is costing our local authorities in welfare rights officers and rent arrears. In allowing children to go hungry, it is costing our education outcomes.
Rather than working in silos, we need a new cross-departmental and cross-party approach, and we need that before universal credit reaches our largest cities, such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, which are due to be migrated soon. The NAO stressed its concern about any further roll-out until the issues it raised are addressed. We agree. We have been saying so for years. So my appeal to the Secretary of State is to work across the House and with the third sector to take a strong coalition to persuade the Chancellor to invest in universal credit at the autumn Budget.

Derek Thomas: The only things that actually matter today are the life chances of people who have been failed for decades by the benefit system. People who have been trapped out of the workplace do not care two hoots for the politics on display here today.
In a previous life, I worked to support working-age people who had little or no opportunity of getting anywhere near the workplace and satisfying employment. Even those who had abundant talent and wanted to work dared not do so. They were locked out of paid work by the complete disruption getting a job would cause to their benefits, with weeks of no payment whatever until they were reassessed.

Chris Green: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the nature of his constituency? Some constituencies have a great many people earning a great deal of money, but that is not reflected in all constituencies.

Derek Thomas: My hon. Friend is right. I went into that work because in west Cornwall we have a significant number of people who could be described as vulnerable, some with severe learning disabilities, and who deserve the support and help that they are beginning to get today.
Under the benefit system that universal credit replaces, potential employers were encouraged to offer placements and pay people a pitiful £4 a day so as not to upset   their benefit payments. For years, the welfare system demonstrated loud and clear that large numbers of people had nothing to offer. It was not thought worth the effort to help them into work and they were abandoned indefinitely.
I accept that the roll-out of universal credit has had some significant challenges, which is no surprise, given the complexity of the benefit system it replaces. It is clear that more must be done. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her Ministers for the way they have engaged with Members who have taken specific cases to them. Ministers have engaged with those cases and worked hard to deliver them.
I secured a debate in Westminster Hall some time ago in which I asked the Government to look at the role of voluntary groups on the ground—they are at the coalface helping people—and, as a result, the dynamic purchasing system was introduced. I ask the Secretary of State to look at how well that is helping the charities that are working with those vulnerable people.

Alex Chalk: When individual cases go wrong, of course they should be fixed. At a time of record low unemployment this country spends some £90 billion a year on working-age benefits—as it should—but to put that in context, that is more than double what we spend on schools. In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend agree that the suggestion that somehow resources are not being applied is wide of the mark?

Derek Thomas: I agree, and I know from my experience of working with some of those vulnerable people that they have untapped talents and skills. Employers want access to those skills, but all sorts of barriers have existed. They are beginning to be broken down now, enabling people to move away from the support my hon. Friend describes and giving them much more control over their lives.
More must be done to improve the roll-out and support families towards achieving greater independence, but the truth is that when the transition from the old system to universal credit is completed, many of the people I meet and have met much prefer the new system. I will continue to support my constituents to transfer to a benefit system that gives them greater control over their finances, and better and smoother opportunities in work and life chances.
My ask of the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that they ensure that local authorities and jobcentres use the resources they have, including the dynamic purchasing system, much more effectively to help all people who for so long have been locked out of the life chances that we want them to have.

Frank Field: An apology: I was in the House when somebody repeated that campaign phrase against the Secretary of State. I was stunned by what was said, and I hope that she will forgive me for not getting up immediately to object to it. I apologise for my total failure to respond as a human being when that was said, and I hope that she forgives me if I do not actually recite what was said, because such nastiness  and evil is not directed just at her; it is directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the neighbouring constituency to the one that the Secretary of State fought. What is occurring is a disgrace. How we stop it, I do not know, but we can at least apologise when it occurs. I am grateful that the right hon. Lady raised it today so that my saying that would be in order.

Esther McVey: I know those words are heartfelt, and I accept that apology. It took a long time for people to come forward. I would have liked those on the Opposition Front Bench to have done so, because they represent the Labour party, and I know that such a thing is not at the heart of the Labour party.
We started off with a ding-dong in the Chamber today. I do not necessarily think that we are at our best in Parliament when we have a ding-dong like that. People watching outside do not understand the real reasons why we, on both sides of the House, came into politics. I put this on the record now: let us work cross-party to get universal credit right. Let us work with third sector organisations to get it right. Let us reach out and get it right, because it affects so many millions of people. We are doing our best, and lots more people are in work, but we can do more. Let us do it together.

Frank Field: One last point: Back Benchers can apologise only for our own action or inaction. That is my apology.
In this debate, one wonders what truth is and what facts are. When reading the NAO report, I reached totally different conclusions to the Secretary of State. I thought the message was that the Comptroller and Auditor General was perplexed beyond belief that he could not recommend to go back or to go forward. There was a clear recommendation that we should pause, and I ask the Secretary of State for that pause—not never to resume the roll-out, but to at least to ensure that we are not inflicting unnecessary suffering, horror and hunger on our constituents, which Opposition Members have certainly registered, and which must have been registered by Members on the other side of the House.

Ruth Cadbury: The Secretary of State said that this was a new benefit that was helping people into work. In my London borough of Hounslow, we have had full service roll-out for two years and three months, and three quarters of claimants are in work. It has caused huge problems. Many families have lost their homes and jobs, and many have been threatened with losing their children. Does my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee agree that a pause should have happened a long time ago in order to address the problems that were more than relevant and apparent in Hounslow?

Frank Field: Yes, indeed, but I am really anxious to respond to the Secretary of State’s wish that we work together. The building block of working together is to take that key sentence from the NAO report, whatever else it said, about a pause—not to scrap universal credit, but to have a pause—to make sure that in three respects we are not party to inflicting untold misery, horror and hunger on our constituents.
The first is that we do not continue the roll-out until we have universal support. We do not have universal support in the way in which all of us understand the word universal.
Secondly, on real-time information, the experience in my constituency—it must be the experience in other constituencies as well—is that real-time information is neither real nor on time. That is causing the most incredible problems with people’s claims. Might we have a pause until we make sure the Revenue can service the Secretary of State’s Department in a way that we need for a successful continuation of the roll-out of universal credit?
Thirdly, on debt, on which the Secretary of State could decide today, debts of yesteryear are being found and charged to people on universal credit. The repayment of those debts is overwhelming people. I am not saying that people should not pay their debts, but do we not think that feeding one’s children, and ensuring the rent is paid and the heating is on, ought to be at least equal in importance to the repayment of debt? Might I therefore make a plea to the Secretary of State that she looks at the rules—not to scrap the repayment of debt, but the amount that is reclaimed—on debts that most of us will have forgotten?

Esther McVey: rose—

Frank Field: I give way willingly.

Esther McVey: Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that. I want to reassure him. I have not been in post that long to get to grips with absolutely everything on UC, but debt and how it is repaid is precisely what I am focusing on at the moment.

Frank Field: That is wonderful news, but after the right hon. Lady has considered debt and decided on it there is the business about real-time information. This is not under her control as the information is supplied to her by another Department. It is not real and it is not on time, so perhaps she could look at that as the next item on the list. There is also the crucial business of universal support. I tried to claim, but I could not do it in the time. A lot of us need that support to make sure we can make a claim successfully. If we are going to work cross-party on this, there has to be give on the other side as well as on this side.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am very sorry but, because of time constraints, I will now have to impose a three-minute limit.

Chris Green: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who has done so much over many years to advance the cause of people on welfare.
There has been recognition over a great many years about the complexity of the system that people need to access for the support they need. In 2010, the then Secretary of State asked for an estimate of how many benefits there were. The estimates ranged from 50 to 60 different benefits. When people are trying to access support, that complexity puts people off. It makes it more difficult for people to access the benefits and support they need. I welcome the sense of “hiding the wiring” with universal credit to enable people to get that support.
The idea that work always pays is absolutely critical. The 16-hour rule is a perverse disincentive to people taking on more work. Not taking on more work means  that individuals do not get the experience they need. Not taking on more work means that people will not receive the training that someone working 24 hours or 30 hours would receive. Training is an investment by the business in the individual, and getting extra hours enormously improves the chances of that individual receiving training. Better prospects mean that people will get better jobs and better pay, and have more job security.
Two jobcentres in my constituency serve my constituents. Both are pleased—delighted, in fact—to have had the roll-out of universal credit locally, because they find that they can more effectively serve the people they are there to serve. The barriers between the people gaining support and the people delivering that support have come down. It is incumbent on everyone participating in the debate to send out a clear message that increased support is there for people who need it most. The barriers have come down and people in jobcentres are far more able to offer and give that support. We need to tell people who need that support, “Go. Get that support, because it is there.”
I realise that today’s debate is very popular, and that shows the importance of universal credit and of this debate. The Secretary of State should carry on the good work she is doing. My constituency office team does a great deal of work with people in the welfare system. The work of all our constituency offices ought to be recognised, because they provide tremendous support to so many people.

Stephen Timms: Universal credit was a good idea, but the problems we are seeing in our constituencies are very significant. The Trussell Trust told us in its briefing for this debate that when universal credit is fully rolled out in an area, demand for food banks in that area goes up by 52% in the following year compared with 13% in areas where universal credit has not been fully rolled out. I noticed that the National Audit Office looked specifically at what the Trussell Trust said about demand for food banks where universal credit has been fully rolled out. The NAO states that its analysis
“aligns with the Trussell Trust’s.”
Indeed, the Department’s own analysis—the survey that the Secretary of State referred to, which was published last month—makes the point, as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) has told the House already, that four out of 10 claimants in both the survey’s waves that were looked at were experiencing difficulties keeping up with bills. That is a much higher proportion of people facing hardship than has been the case with the previous system.
Why is universal credit causing much greater hardship than the previous system? Above all, it is for the very straightforward reason that people have to wait for five weeks before they are entitled to anything other than a loan once they have applied. A lot of people—I think we can all understand why—struggle to survive during those weeks. The theory was this: someone who has just left their job has a month’s salary in the bank that will see them through for a month; and after the usual waiting days, their money will start to come in. But a very large number of people do not have a month’s  salary in the bank. There are a lot of good reasons why that is the case, but the most obvious is that people are often paid weekly. A very large number of people are paid weekly, but Ministers—I asked the former Secretary of State about this some years ago—have never had an answer to how those people are supposed to survive. I am grateful that the Secretary of State has told the House that she is listening and that she wants to work cross-party to fix these problems, and I very much welcome the fact that last October the delay was reduced from six weeks to five, but a gap of five weeks is asking too much of people who very often have virtually nothing in the bank when they make their claim.

Ruth George: Ministers have been saying that the advance payments solve the problem of the long wait, but the evidence we are getting from the Trussell Trust, among others, is that the high rates of repayment of those advances mean that they do not solve anything, but just prolong the debt that people are in.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If people are forced to depend on an advance right at the beginning of their claim, they are by definition plunged into debt right at the start. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has I think told us today, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), that she will look at the repayment periods and, hopefully, offer a less demanding repayment schedule than is the case at the moment. However, just plunging people into debt at the beginning of a claim is a very serious problem.
The Trussell Trust, which I have referred to, said that we should pause the roll-out of universal credit to fix the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) made that plea from the Opposition Front Bench, as she has done repeatedly and rightly. The Secretary of State can perhaps discount those representations, but she should weigh carefully what the National Audit Office said, to which attention has already been drawn today. Its report said that the Government should
“ensure the programme does not expand before business-as-usual operations can cope with higher claimant volumes.”
I very much hope that the Secretary of State and her fellow Ministers will weigh that cautionary note very carefully indeed.

Simon Hoare: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks with great experience on these matters. One of the burning questions this afternoon is whether the Labour party’s official position is to continue to support the principle of universal credit. Every time that Labour has the opportunity to endorse universal credit, it dodges doing that and seeks to tear it down from within.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, may be interested to hear the observation of one of the senior managers in my local jobcentre in Blandford Forum, which I visited a few weeks ago. He told me that he had been advocating and urging something like universal credit since he joined the service way back in 1986. This simplified approach, making it easier for  people, is absolutely the right way. Likewise, the approach of roll-out, pause, reflect and revise that the Government and the Department have adopted is absolutely the right one. That is in sharp contradistinction to the dramatic roll-out, to trumpets and drums, of the tax credit system, and look at the absolute disaster that that was. The Department’s approach is the right one.
The shadow Minister, of course, has form on these matters. In a debate on the national health service in January this year, she told us:
“Let us have no more talk about taking the politics out of the NHS. The NHS is a political entity.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 373.]
I chastised her on that. She likes to come forward with crocodile tears, synthetic concern and outrage. Labour Front Benchers merely use this to prey on the concerns of very vulnerable people for what they believe to be cheap political advantage.
The hon. Lady may be interested to hear an email from a constituent of mine—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) wants to intervene, he is very welcome to.

Grahame Morris: I’m not going to give you more time.

Simon Hoare: Thank you for that. Let me quote from a constituent of mine:
“I went in great fear of UC. I thought it would be too difficult and cruel. I thought things would be made hard for me and my family. But I applied. It was easy and far simpler than I thought.”
He said that the only mistake he made was that he had listened to Labour and that it was Labour that had made him afraid of the process. That is the legacy of the approach.
In closing, I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider—the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and I have discussed this—the role and effectively the right of audience that those who work for the CAB have in this process. There seems to be some confusion. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she convene, at a moment of her convenience, some form of roundtable to establish some form of protocol for those in the CAB who do valiant work for our constituents.

Esther McVey: Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that, so I will answer my hon. Friend. I met the CAB the other day. In terms of what we are putting forward, I think what he is suggesting could be in my mind, too. We will be working on something that I can announce pretty shortly; we will be working together to help benefit claimants.

Simon Hoare: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. That underscores the approach that she has outlined of listening and engaging. In that spirit, I urge her and her Department to issue—this may not be the right phraseology—some form of national guidance to all CAB offices and to all Members across the House on what the role of the CAB is. I take my hat off to them; I have two CAB offices serving my constituency. They often deal with very complex debt issues, which I am certainly not qualified to deal with. We owe those volunteers, who give up so much of their time, a huge debt of thanks. As I said, the hon. Member for Oxford  East and I have discussed this. We came to different views on the advice that we had been given, so such guidance would be very welcome indeed.
Let us not forget the value of work and what should always be the temporary nature of state support for people with regards to welfare. It is not a way of life, but a helping hand. It is a safety net to self-determination, self-reliance and support for family. I am convinced that universal credit will deliver that, and it has my support.

Neil Coyle: The Secretary of State started the debate by asking for an apology about words used towards her by a senior member of my party. I add my apologies to those she has already received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). I am very conscious of the plaque that is right over my shoulder. The language of violence and threats to people has no part in our party or our politics, but the context of today’s debate is the Secretary of State’s inaccurate statements, which she has admitted were misleading.
This Government have misled the whole country about universal credit. They have claimed that it is on time. Its delivery to millions of people was meant to be finished in October 2017. We are about 12% of the way through. They claim it has public support, when one nickname locally in Southwark is “Universal Dread-it”. They claim that it supports people in work, when the Secretary of State is meeting a constituent of mine who was self-employed and made homeless as a result of universal credit. They claim that it is on budget, when it costs three times as much to administer a decision on universal credit as the legacy benefits, and it has cost £1.9 billion to get 800,000 people on to universal credit. The general public get that, even if Ministers still want to try to peddle misinformation, and people certainly get it in Southwark, which is a full service area and an early adopter.
In Southwark, the claim that it is a better system has been completely blown apart. The council is owed £5 million in arrears from universal credit recipients alone, and the average arrears are now £1,800-plus. The Government claim that those people were in arrears before, but that is simply not true. With a legacy benefit such as housing benefit, the average council tenant is £8 in credit—they have no arrears at all. For those who are on legacy housing benefit and in arrears, the average figure is less than half the average for those on universal credit.
The Government claim that universal credit is working well. Tell Citizens Advice: 50,000 people a quarter are going to Citizens Advice up and down the country for information and support on universal credit. Tell the food banks: Southwark food bank alone gave out 4,227 three-day emergency parcels last year, including to more than 1,600 children, the single biggest reason being universal credit. The Government also claim that most people get the right support quickly, so everything is hunky-dory. The NAO said that this year alone, more than a quarter of a million people will get payments late. That is completely unacceptable. The Department is ignoring those real problems and making increasingly desperate excuses and outlandish claims about universal credit.
We are here today because the Secretary of State made a false or misleading statement about what the NAO said. Actually, she has claimed multiple times, including this week, that universal credit gets more people into work. The NAO said:
“The Department will never be able to measure whether Universal Credit actually leads to…more people in work, because it cannot isolate the effect”.
It also said:
“Both we, and the Department, doubt it will ever be possible for the Department to measure whether the economic goal of increasing employment has been achieved.”
That is what the NAO said, so enough of the Trumptopia—enough of blaming, scapegoating and distraction through disinformation administered by a Department that is failing from bottom to top.

Alex Burghart: It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), particularly after the remarks he made at the start of his speech. I very much welcome the offer that the Secretary of State made today to work cross-party to help to improve universal credit. I happen to think that that attitude has been prevalent in the Department for some time. That is what, quite frankly, led to its accepting a number of recommendations that the Committee, headed by my friend, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), made last year. It led to the reforms that we saw in November, which are now being implemented.
I do not want to go over this again, because this is the third time that I have to say this in the past week in the House. However, the NAO report, which raises some important issues, does not take account of the changes that were implemented at the start of the year. Its survey period was from March to September last year. It is a fact that test and learn, as implemented by the Department, has allowed the system to evolve in response to reports that our Committee made last year.
This is test and learn in action. It is a sign of a system that is capable of evolving and responding as we find out more about how it works. While there is always room for improvement and there are many things we can do to improve the system—I am particularly pleased to hear the Secretary of State say she will look at repayment periods, and I know the work she is doing on universal support to ensure that people can get out of debt—it is important to have a system that enables those changes to be made, and I take some solace in the fact that that exists.
I have had universal credit in my jobcentre since November. My office is in frequent contact with it, and in my area at least—I can only speak for my area—things are going very well: the work coaches are extremely pleased with the system and the claimants I have spoken to have been extremely pleased with the service they have received.
Today’s motion brings a personal censure against the Secretary of State. The House will remember that the Secretary of State has been in post since the start of the year, since when she has reinstated housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, introduced new support for  kinship carers, discontinued PIP legal appeals and introduced protections for people with severe disability payments. That is what she has done in the past six months. I just say to the House that we are not at our best when we make matters personal, rather than about policy, and it would be better if we did not cross this grubby line again.

Angela Eagle: It is hard to overstate the rolling catastrophe that is universal credit and the abject misery and hardship that it represents not only to my constituents but to those of many other right hon. and hon. Members. As page 19 of the NAO report demonstrates, the system is so beleaguered that, while the original plan was for more than 7 million households to be on universal credit by now, the latest figures show that just 660,000 households were on it by the end of last year. The system is already six years late and there is no guarantee that it will ever arrive at the destination originally envisaged, yet the NAO estimates that the system has currently cost £2 billion to implement and is costing an astonishing £699 per claim.
The proper response to the huge problems with universal credit in the Department should be a commitment to improve and an acknowledgement of the undoubted weaknesses and design flaws that have been revealed. We have not had enough of that response. We have had ministerial denial and dissembling. Whatever dubious assertions the Minister may make about the merits of the system in response to today’s debate, the lived experience of my constituents in Wallasey contradicts them. It started to be rolled out in Wallasey in November 2017, and many of my constituents have been struggling ever since. As a result, many families have been placed under increasing pressure and hardship through no fault of their own.
Experience demonstrates that food bank usage increases by 30% in areas where there has been a full service roll-out. In Wirral, the increase was 35% in the first five months of 2018, as more and more families were forced to move on to universal credit. In the first five months of this year, 50,000 three-day emergency food packages were given out, nearly 15,000 going to children. In my constituency, the introduction of universal credit was 13% complete in December 2017, yet almost every day my constituency office receives new cases from people struggling with the system.
I have a constituent who suffers from a condition that leads to episodes of multiple seizures. She was attending a medical assessment as part of her claim when she suffered multiple seizures in front of the doctor. Not only was there a lack of understanding and sympathy about her condition; they refused to accept the medical evidence and what they were witnessing and shockingly told her that she had to come back the next day at 9 am to be re-examined. She has still not had her claim processed and is now frightened to leave the house for fear of being accused of being a benefits cheat.
Claimants are being given insufficient advice and guidance from their jobcentres and local advocacy services have been decimated. I have constituents who have been sanctioned and have no other income. We know that this is not working. We have to make it work. It is not working at the moment.

Heidi Allen: I suspect that everybody in the House became an MP because they wanted to make a difference—I most certainly did, and I know the Secretary of State did too—so I find the motion to be nothing other than an unacceptable personal attack on her. Perhaps President Trump’s visit to the UK this week can serve as a reminder: they go low and we go high.
I have yet to talk to any organisation with deep knowledge of our benefits system past and present that does not agree that universal credit is a vast improvement on legacy systems. Everyone who cares about alleviating poverty and improving the life chances of the vulnerable wants universal credit to succeed. I could look back and say I wish we had had more ministerial stability at the Department, that the roll-out in the last 12 months could have been slower or that the £1.5 billion in the Budget last year could have come a bit sooner, but since she has taken the reins at the DWP the Secretary of State has listened, just as her predecessor did. Deciding not to pursue the court challenges over PIP, and the severe disability payments, which we have heard about today, were both the right things to do. I am confident that when those of us who have constructively assessed the system tell her what more we can do, she will listen.
Let us start with the current system. We need to upgrade universal support to Martini status. Given that just 54% of claimants can enrol for universal credit without assistance, we need to ensure that universal support is available anywhere, everywhere and at any time. This means a full service specification with quality standards that can be monitored. It needs to provide more than was originally envisaged, including debt advice, which should be available through a trusted provider and to every claimant who needs it. I would suggest contracting it out to Citizens Advice, housing associations or some other such organisation.
The universal credit system as a whole needs quality indicators. What does good look like? What payment timeliness are we aiming for? What about accessibility, advanced payments and debt monitoring? Let us think of claimants as valuable clients, as citizens and taxpayers who deserve excellence in their interactions with the DWP. I want us to focus on the most vulnerable claimants—those at risk of ending up in our surgeries and food banks—such as victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery, those with mental health issues and the disabled.
Let us treat them as a special set of customers—platinum customers—and make it our mission to ensure they do not fall through the net. Let us think about fast-tracking them through the system and treating advanced payments as first payments, not loans to be collected back in. Since we pay universal credit in arrears, that advanced payment should be collected right at the end, when, all being well, the customer, with all the positive support of universal credit and the skills and passion of their work coach, has moved into good sustainable employment.

Paul Masterton: My hon. Friend mentions work coaches. I was disappointed that the Opposition spokesperson expressed no gratitude to the incredible men and women all over the country  working on the frontline of our jobcentres with some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Does she agree that they deserve our support?

Heidi Allen: Absolutely, and they care deeply. I have spent time with work coaches all over the country in different jobcentres. They are proud of what they do and deserve our support. Working with them, we need to identify every crack in the system and ensure that our most precious customers—our platinum customers—do not slip through them. In that regard, I am pleased that the Chancellor has agreed to keep an eye on the taper rate.
None of my asks so far would incur big financial costs, but there is one we should ask the Chancellor for: we have to release working-age claimants from the benefits freeze. Universal credit can be the most positive and efficient system in the world, but if people cannot afford to live on it, it will not matter a jot. Furthermore, all this has to be sorted out before we push the button for managed migration. This is important, because when we do that, about two thirds of the claimants who will move across will be ESA claimants. They are our platinum customers and everything has to be perfect for them before we move them across. I will need to be reassured of that before I can vote for that legislation.
Conservative Members want universal credit to work. It is brilliant that we will be working with Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust, Save the Children and others as they are desperate to engage positively and collaboratively. Getting universal credit right and, in doing so, helping millions of people in this country—that is a motion worth supporting.

Jessica Morden: I too want universal credit to work, but yet again the Secretary of State has come to the House, in the face of evidence and feedback from the NAO, CABs, food banks, housing associations, local government and others, and just appears to want to ride it out and brazen it out. That is deeply worrying and disappointing for my constituency because Newport has only had about 10% roll-out so far, and those are the easy cases—new claimants, single people without children, families with no more than two children. Yes, some people will have managed to navigate universal credit, but, as the NAO report says, for a “substantial minority” that is not the case. We need to address the problem as a matter of urgency before the roll-out reaches the more complicated cases. involving moving people from legacy benefits and people with larger families.
During this limited roll-out, we have also seen the problems documented by the NAO report reflected locally, and alarm bells should be heard. There have been problems with the initial claims: for instance, one family were inadvertently moved to universal credit and had to be returned to legacy benefits. It took 99 days for the lost tax credits to be fully recovered. According to the report, one in five claimants do not receive their full payments on time, and on average those claimants have been paid four weeks late. That means that many people do not receive their full payments for eight or nine weeks—and they are often people with no savings on which to rely. Some of my constituents have to resort to using food banks. One local food bank reports giving out 300 extra parcels every month over and above the  increase that it anticipated. Other constituents do not want the advance payments because they do not want to go into debt, and are borrowing from loan sharks or from family and friends instead.
I agree with all the points that have been made about the online system, but let me add one more. People who have no individual ID, such as a passport or driving licence, now face a longer wait for an appointment before they can get into the system into which the delay is built. Those are often the most vulnerable people, and that too needs to be addressed.
Advice services such as citizens advice bureaux are seeing more and more people, and Newport CAB tells me that most of the problems involve initial claims. Arrears and debt problems do not just go away, as is shown by the Government’s own full service survey. Housing associations and local authorities are picking up the extra costs. Rent arrears alone are costing housing associations in Wales more than £1 million.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the hard-working DWP staff out there. According to a survey conducted by the Public and Commercial Services Union, 80% felt that there were not enough staff to manage the workload. I know that they are doing their best with the resources that they currently have, and I thank them for what they are trying to do.

Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while DWP staff are remarkably good at the job they do, they must have the tools they need to do that job, and many are frustrated that they do not have them?

Jessica Morden: I absolutely agree. I believe that they are doing the best they can with the tools that they have been given, but they need far more resources.
I hope that the Minister who winds up will adopt a more conciliatory tone. It is not enough to say that the delays can be solved by advance payments, or that it is too early to assess the impacts. The evidence is plain to see in our constituencies. The Government have been forced to change parts of this policy, and it is now time for them to pause and listen. If the roll-out speeds up and takes on the more complicated cases, we will, I fear, see only more debt and hardship among those who need the system to help them into work, or to support them if they cannot work.

Richard Graham: Let me start by welcoming my near neighbour and old friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), back to his place on the Front Bench.
Today there was a fantastic opportunity for the Opposition to hold a debate on one of a range of very topical issues, many of which arise this week: the future of NATO, the way forward for the western Balkans, our security partnership with the United States, or the revised economic growth figures and the potential impact on savers and borrowers.

Rachel Maclean: Or the World cup.

Richard Graham: Or, indeed, the World cup. Unfortunately, however, the Opposition chose none of those issues, and have fallen rather than risen to the  occasion by tabling a motion containing two censures and a personal attack, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, in relation to something for which the Secretary of State has already apologised.
I am here today for a straightforward reason: to remind the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood)—who is not paying a huge amount of attention—that it is a mistake for the Opposition to throw stones from very fragile glass houses. Let me explain why. On 11 October last year, the Leader of the Opposition said, at Parliament’s peak moment, during Prime Minister’s Question Time:
“The last Labour Government lifted a million children out of poverty. Gloucester City Homes has evicted one in eight of all of its tenants because of universal credit. The Prime Minister talks about helping the poorest, but the reality is a very, very different story.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 324.]
Let me remind the House that the reality was indeed a very, very different story. The actual figure was not one in eight—which would have meant 650 out of 5,200 tenants in my constituency—but a total of eight, one of whom had left the property 18 months earlier and another of whom had left the country. That is a very, very different story indeed. It would have been fitting for the Leader of the Opposition to apologise, and to have expressed some form of recognition that he had slandered the city of Gloucester, Gloucester City Homes—which is an excellent housing association—and, indeed, all of us who try to engage in a rational, measured, objective debate on universal credit, which is what we did in the Select Committee when I was on it. My point is that we should avoid these motions of censure, stop criticising people personally, and focus on the facts.
Before I run out of time, let me offer some recommendations to the Secretary of State. First, the trusted partner programme is working very well, and housing associations such as Gloucester City Homes benefit from it. Please may we have more of it for more housing associations? Secondly, the Secretary of State is right to focus on debt, and I should love to know more about why people go on to universal credit with so many debts.

Hugh Gaffney: I came to the House to stand up for the most vulnerable, and for those who need a better deal from their Government, in Holyrood and in Westminster. Those people are public sector workers, single parents with families, people with disabilities, and refugees who are making new lives for themselves. They are people, including parents, who are doing two or three jobs just to survive, pay the bills and fill the fridge. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for a spirited defence of working-class people who are dealing with the harsh decisions of a bad Government.
Just last week, we saw the head of the National Audit Office call out the Secretary of State on a number of claims that she had made in response to its recent report on the roll-out of universal credit. It is worth noting that he was forced to send a letter to the Government after the Secretary of State would not sit down to discuss the issue with him. That reeks of a Government who are sitting down with their fingers stuck in their ears. And why are they sticking their fingers in their ears? Because the NAO report was damning. It was  stinging in its clarity about the fact that the Government’s flagship social security reform programme is not meeting the aims that were set out, and there is no evidence that it ever will.
Just last month, the Department for Work and Pensions itself published a survey that showed that 40% of claimants were still experiencing financial difficulties nine months into their claims. In my constituency, 21% of children live in low-income households. North Lanarkshire Council has recognised that people are finding it tough, and have introduced a properly funded free school meals programme. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the council, led by Councillor Frank McNally, for that and for all the work they do to support families. The introduction of free school meals every single day of the year—yes, 365—shows that decisions can be taken to support families who are finding it tough. I also pay tribute to my colleague Elaine Smith MSP, who revealed this week that warrants for council tax arrears in Scotland have soared by 40% in the last five years. As Monica Lennon MSP has said, too many Scots are struggling with the basics.
People in our country, and particularly in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, are finding it tough, and we need to think again. I hope that the Government will soon recognise that things are not going as planned—that Tory universal credit is not the answer that they thought it would be, and that it is time to call a halt and think again.

Julian Knight: When the Government first announced their intention to implement universal credit, it was past the time when we should have grasped the nettle of welfare reform. The existing system was simply failing claimants. It was difficult to navigate—people missed payments to which they were entitled because of the complexity and the myriad different benefits—and it created perverse incentives that locked people out of work. It was truly time for change.
Universal credit was introduced to do several things. First, it was intended to simplify the complex system of different benefits, allowances and tax credits that had preceded it. Streamlining services will not only make them easier to administer, but, crucially, will make the system much more transparent for the user. That is further reinforced by the Government’s decision to invest £200 million in budgeting and digital support to help claimants, as we heard earlier from the Secretary of State. I am sure nobody ever intended to create the strong disincentives to work which ended up being baked into the previous system; it was simply very difficult to keep track of how many different welfare systems would interact with each other in the real world and over such a long period of time.
Creating a system that makes sure that work pays was the second goal of UC. I hope Members on both sides of the House agree that it was not right that some of the poorest people in our society faced some of the highest de facto marginal tax rates as a result of the previous system. Nobody should have to face a pay cut to move from welfare into work. A good job is about so much more than money: employment boosts our independence, our self-respect and our mental health. All claimants deserve the best possible chance of fulfilling their potential and building a strong, long-lasting career.
I am pleased that the Government have recognised that implementing such sweeping reform is a complex and sensitive task, and have adopted an incremental approach that allows Ministers and civil servants to adjust the roll-out—recalibrate at certain times—based on the feedback on the ground. That stands in sharp contrast to the chaos, which I remember from having worked in consumer affairs in the early 2000s, of the sudden “big bang” of tax credits. It is to the Secretary of State’s credit that she has listened since coming into office and has made so many crucial changes.
To sum up, UC is a fantastic idea and the implementation is coming along—we are getting there. We understand that not everything is perfect, but we are making the effort, and we need Members in all parts of the House to recognise that the system is crucial to moving people from a dependency culture into the world of work, not just for them, but for their families and our society.

Tulip Siddiq: I want to raise two key issues to do with UC that affect my constituents: first, the associated decisions that compromise the Government’s stated aim of helping more people into work; secondly, some adjustments that my constituents are asking to be made to ensure that the programme is fit for purpose for families with childcare needs.
One of the more reasonable aims of UC is to try to get more people into work, yet the Government seem to fail to account for how decisions taken elsewhere by the DWP will affect the outcomes of the policy itself. Many have talked today about the top-slicing of UC, the bedroom tax, and the changes to disability payments, but in my constituency a particularly damaging development has been the closure of jobcentres. Many of those affected have contacted my office saying they are being pushed ever further into crisis due to the added travel distance and the cost of travelling to the remaining centre in the borough. House of Commons Library figures show that 60% of the legacy benefit claimants in my area were served by the Jobcentre Plus in Kilburn. There is now a significant gap in support for vulnerable individuals; they will miss out on vital employment support as they have little or no funds to pay for that commute. To add insult to injury, these changes were made with little or no prior consultation and, as far as I am aware, there was no equalities impact assessment before they were confirmed.
The closures undermine the Government’s rhetoric about helping people into work. For all the good intentions of DWP Ministers, they are being betrayed by the reality of their own policies on the ground. I hope the Minister in summing up will explain how the DWP will support the local council with the funds and resources necessary to ensure employment support is truly available to this community. The Public and Commercial Services Union and the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group have long called for proper consultation on what employment support in the area looks like, and I hope the Minister will respond accordingly today.
As the chair of the all-party group on childcare and early education, I am very conscious that this policy will also have consequences for parents across the country, and of course in my constituency. Paola is just one of the single parents from West Hampstead  who have asked that I raise specific concerns about UC today. She has demanded better access to fortnightly payments and for the Government to offer flexibility for those managing fluctuating incomes. Similarly, she has raised concerns over the new job-seeking requirements for parents of three and four-year-old children. Making adjustments on these points would be a huge support for single parents who are self-employed, or who face huge childcare costs, and often both. The pressures on single parents are running in tandem, with many more families claiming UC and having to pay monthly childcare bills up front.
I hope the Minister will address these issues in summing up. If the Secretary of State is truly being honest about wanting to make this work and wanting to work together, she must take into account that fact that there are parents with childcare costs for whom UC is not currently working.

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
When I first saw the motion on the Order Paper I was dismayed by the wording and the personal attack on the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey). It was very good of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) to stand and give their apologies, and I give a heartfelt welcome to that. I hope they will call on their colleagues, particularly the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), to stand in this Chamber and repeat their words, because the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is absolutely right to say we have more in common when we work together, and we should put that hatred aside once and for all; the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead are great examples of that.
I want to focus on an aspect of UC that we sometimes do not focus on enough. I come at this from my background in software and systems and technology. The Secretary of State has explained that UC is an agile test and learn system, but what does that really mean? In the words of the jobcentre staff in Redditch, it means that every claimant is an individual and they have support tailored to their unique circumstances. Those circumstances are not static at one point in time; they might change—their income might go up or down, their family situation might change. That is why what we are discussing is so important. The calls to pause UC often unfortunately fail to grasp the nature of an agile test and learn system; if we pause a system, we cannot have that feedback put into the system to improve it. We want the system to be improved in order to be able to improve people’s lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) has said, this is not just about economics; this is about human potential—people’s human potential to give to their society and to provide for their families, which is what we all want to see.
I have experience of the full service in Redditch; it has been rolled out there. There are always things to improve, and I will focus on one area in the NAO report: will the  Department ensure it sets out the goals more clearly and tracks the progress towards them? That is very important in any complex system, which this is.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton is a learning and listening Secretary of State. I commend her on the work she has done, and I am sure she will continue to work in this way.

Karen Lee: Lincoln saw the full roll-out of UC in March. It is about hardship; it is about poverty; it is about debt—that is the reality. This month over 600 claimants in my constituency need to apply to be transferred over to the full service. It is causing havoc and deep concern—it genuinely is. Prolonged delays have set in motion a damaging cycle of debt, rent arrears and even eviction and homelessness. In Lincoln, arrears in 264 council houses total over  £80,000 of debt since UC was rolled out. My constituents who are forced to wait for UC payments are unable to cope with household budgeting—they just cannot do it on that kind of income—and their physical and mental wellbeing is affected as bills and debts pile up.
We shall take as an example what has happened to Anna, one of my constituents. Anna has been passed from pillar to post as she has tried to navigate through slow and complex bureaucracy. The delay in receiving her payment has forced her to sell everything she can, including her car. Despite help from my office and Lincoln’s Labour-led city council, Anna has fallen into arrears and has been understandably anxious regarding the lack of progress in her case; even my staff member who supported her got really upset about it—the House has to listen to this.
The chaotic roll-out of universal credit means that thousands of people like Anna are facing a nightmarish situation. We are not making it up. In my constituency, I have supported people who are either waiting for or receiving universal credit. They cannot even afford to feed themselves and their families and they have to rely on food banks to survive. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who works in Lincoln’s food banks supporting those people. They are doing a tremendous job against the odds.
The Secretary of State made three inaccurate statements, but she has apologised for only one of them. I might be new here, but by my reckoning that still leaves two that have not been apologised for. There has been a lot of talk today about working together. May I appeal to the Secretary of State to pause and fix universal credit, and to listen to what we are saying before more families are plunged into debt and poverty and risk suffering the indignity of using food banks?

Stephen Kerr: This is a petty and mean motion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing a first-class job, and I have only the utmost respect for her and for what she is doing. There is no more passionate an advocate for the principle of work and the eradication of poverty than my right hon. Friend. Her team are attentive, listening and committed to the task, which is to ensure that people are always better off in work than on benefits.
We have had full service universal credit in Stirling for over a year, and I would like to share some observations and suggestions based on our experience. First, is there a way—I think there might have been a suggestion earlier that there is—in which the DWP could extend the concept of trusted partner status to organisations such as Citizens Advice? That would allow Citizens Advice volunteer advisers to have access to named DWP contacts in order to support the resolution of client queries, which would go a long way to making things simpler and resolving things quickly. The second point is on the need to secure mental health training for DWP staff dealing with the migration of legacy benefits. The legacy benefits issue has been well documented, and with more vulnerable clients coming into the system, we need to ensure that DWP staff are well supported when supporting their clients.
Thirdly, there needs to be increased decision-making discretion at local level on reassessment, and particularly on mandatory reconsideration. When clients are well known to the DWP, it is my view that the mandatory reconsideration process is redundant. More than 90% of medical assessment decisions are upheld at that stage, but three quarters are then overturned on appeal. Giving more discretion to local staff on this matter would make the system more efficient and make better use of the working knowledge that staff have of their face-to-face clients.
My fourth point relates to an anomaly in universal credit deductions. When the DWP makes a deduction from a payment, that might not be the only deduction that is coming off that payment. There might also be court deductions or deductions from the local authority. This can often take claimants below the minimum payment level and leave them without anything to live on. That is a real-life experience.
My final point relates to women’s refuges. When a woman goes into a refuge, only one benefit should stop, and the woman should continue to receive payments. In the experience of our local women’s refuge in Stirling, both payments have stopped, and that is unacceptable. That situation needs clarity.

Heidi Allen: Does my hon. Friend agree that those sorts of women are the platinum customers that I am talking about? They are the ones who need to be fast-tracked through the system and to have a bespoke work coach with them.

Stephen Kerr: Absolutely. The test of this system is how we take care of the most vulnerable people that are touched by it. That point is well accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team.
Those are the five points that I wanted to make, and I would like to see some movement on them, to help to continue to roll out a fair and improved system that meets the promise of encouraging work and also protects the most vulnerable in society. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Fiona Onasanya: I am slightly concerned that the Secretary of State feels that highlighting the fact that it appears that the House has been misled is now turning into a personal attack, because that is certainly not my intention. My intention is to raise awareness of what is really going on in our constituencies  and what people are coming up against. I understand that this is a censure motion, but that is because we would like a vote on it, and the reason why is that our constituents are affected by this. It is not all goodness and light and a bed of roses with people doing well.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about “test and learn”. I have no issue with that, but we need to learn from the tests. If we roll out a test and get negative feedback, we need to pause and fix it, and then carry on. We should not continue with business as usual when we know from the test that certain aspects are failing. For example, we know that there is a negative impact on our disabled constituents. They are not a forgotten class; they are as important as everyone else. We are asking for a review of the policy. If universal credit has faults, let us fix them rather than rolling out a faulty system.

Bim Afolami: I like the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks, but does she accept that her moderate tone does not reflect the motion on the Order Paper? Does she agree that arguing about technical tweaks relating to universal credit is not quite what the Labour party is doing today?

Fiona Onasanya: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not accept his comments. I am seeking to convey my points in this tone because people are at the centre of this discussion. This is not about politics that are devoid of compassion. That would make this place just a debating chamber, and that is not what it is about. We are seeking to help the individuals who need this assistance. People who need help are being told, “We have weighed everything up and we think this is the minimum you need to get by, but we are going to hold that back. We are going to sanction you.” One of my constituents, who is called Holly, contacted the DWP about what she perceived to be an overpayment. The DWP said, “No, there’s no overpayment. You can continue. The money is yours.” It then decided that there had been an overpayment. She has now been sanctioned and is not entitled to any money until she has repaid £1,500. These are the people we are here to talk about.

Melanie Onn: Would my hon. Friend be surprised to learn that there is a glitch in the system that seems to be putting people into debt? Someone in my constituency has been able to apply for advance payment seven times; because of that glitch, they now have £1,700 of arrears. Is that what the system was designed to do?

Fiona Onasanya: I do not believe that that is what the system was meant to do. That is evidently a glitch that needs to be rectified. This goes back to what I was saying about test and learn. If we can see that there is a problem like that, why would we not pause and fix it before continuing the roll-out? It is almost like still driving a vehicle with a punctured tyre—we are running on the rim and the wheel is being damaged, but we keep on going. We need to pause and say, “Hold on, we’ve been made aware of this. We are not just hearing about these problems but listening, and this is what we are going to do. We are going to pause this, and then we will roll it out. That will be more effective.”
Seeking to help people into work is a good thing, not a negative thing, and we want to give people a hand up, not a handout. However, my worry is that we are not properly serving many of the people we are here to serve if we do not stop and say, “Hold on a minute. We hear what you are saying and we are listening.” We should be listening to the disabled individuals who are not getting the money to which they are entitled. We should be listening to the people who find themselves sanctioned and have to live hand to mouth, or to wait weeks to get more money after their electricity has run out. We should say, “We’re listening to that and we don’t want you to be in that position.” No one cares how much we know until they know how much we care. Let us pause the roll-out and fix this.

James Heappey: I want to talk about three areas: the first relates to the motion and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; the second is the experience in Somerset, where some of the first 15 councils to transition to universal credit nearly two years ago are located; and the third is about what might be left to do.
The speech of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) was one of the more constructive to come from the Opposition Benches, but it is impossible to say that this is not a personal motion that confuses real issues around the roll-out of universal credit with an attack on the Secretary of State. I was in the House last week when she did apologise, and she has done the right thing since she initially spoke incorrectly.
The two district councils in my constituency, Sedgemoor District Council and Mendip District Council, transitioned to universal credit on 25 May 2016 and 27 July 2016 respectively, so the Wells constituency has a lot of experience of universal credit. To be honest, when it first arrived, that experience was not very good at all. A report produced by Sedgemoor District Council in January 2017, after about seven months of dealing with universal credit, said all the things that Opposition Members are saying now. People were being left without money for too long, which was reflected in my case load, and an awful lot of people came to see me for help. Local food banks said to me exactly what they have said to other colleagues and in the media: they were seeing a real uptick in referrals.
I would therefore never argue that the roll-out of universal credit has been smooth and that everything has gone swimmingly. However, now that we are two years into the process of Wells residents transferring to universal credit, things have massively improved. People are now transitioning much more smoothly. The number of people seeking my help because they have experienced difficulties has reduced significantly. Jobcentre Plus staff tell me that they see great merit in universal credit and think that it is achieving all the things that it should achieve to help people into work.

Michael Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is making a constructive, sensible point. Does he agree that the principle of universal credit must always be that it will pay to get people into work and to simplify what was an overcomplicated and over-bureaucratic system?

James Heappey: My hon. Friend is right. That is absolutely the principle of universal credit, and that is exactly what people in my constituency are experiencing now, because so much has been improved over the two years in which universal credit has been operating.
The Department for Work and Pensions is to be commended for how it has responded to feedback. The skills of DWP staff in call centres around the country, their understanding of the system and their ability to help our constituents when we go to them with casework are all much improved. Frankly, it is wrong to suggest that we should pause or stop something that is now well in train when so much has been learned and so many improvements have been made. That is why I am glad that the Government are keeping on course and maintaining the pace of delivery of universal credit.

Matt Rodda: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate and to present the concerns of many of my constituents, whom this failed public policy is supposed to help. The root of the problem for many is that applications are processed solely online. That causes enormous problems for people who are digitally excluded, for those who do not have a smartphone or a computer at home, and for those for whom English is a second language. The support provided by the DWP is inadequate and jobcentres are simply not set up to provide the necessary level of IT support. The National Audit Office report supports that view, and the Department’s own survey found that nearly half of claimants were unable to make a claim online unassisted and a fifth of claims fail at an early stage because claimants are not able to navigate the online system.
I am grateful for the work of my constituency staff and several local support and advice organisations that work tirelessly to plug the shortfall and help to process claims in the absence of adequate DWP support. Without those organisations, to which I pay tribute—they include Reading citizens advice bureau, Woodley citizens advice bureau, Reading community welfare rights unit and CommuniCare—hundreds of people would be falling through the cracks. I visited one of those organisations recently and, in the bright sunshine, I was shocked to find that more than 10 people were queuing at 9 o’clock on a Monday morning. They were waiting in line, desperate for help. This simply is not good enough.
I urge the Secretary of State and my Reading colleague, the Minister for Employment, to see these problems for themselves and pause to fix the roll-out of universal credit.

Kirstene Hair: As we have heard, universal credit replaces a complex web of payments with a single monthly sum. Not only that but it actively encourages people to work by ensuring they do not end up worse off by taking up part-time work.
Under the previous Labour system, people could lose up to £9 of every extra £10 they earned. We are talking about apologies, and I cannot understand why the Labour party will not apologise for punishing people who wanted to work and to provide for their family.
About 60% of those in work who are receiving universal credit want to increase their hours. Figures show an overall increase in earnings of £600 and a fall in the proportion of those making less than £10,000. That is the reality, not the scaremongering from Opposition Members, which only creates anxiety among those who need the very help that universal credit provides.
One example of that scaremongering is the food bank survey, which has been mentioned a number of times in this debate. The sample for that survey was 0.04% of those on universal credit, and it was carried out prior to the changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has implemented. That is not a true reflection of the picture throughout the United Kingdom.
I have heard the concerns expressed by Members, the devolved Administrations and third parties such as charities about the roll-out of universal credit, which is why, both before and since the roll-out began, I have liaised closely with the DWP and jobcentre staff in my Angus constituency.
When I visited the jobcentre in Arbroath earlier this year, its staff made it clear to me that universal credit is a vast improvement on the previous chaos of various benefit payments, which could leave people confused. When there have been occasional issues in transferring constituents from the old system to the new, I have been struck by the DWP’s willingness to listen and to correct errors. In fact, the National Audit Office’s report confirmed my local experience by observing good relationships between work coaches and claimants, which I hope the Opposition will welcome. Indeed, I will return to my jobcentre throughout the summer months because we fix things by learning what the issues are and ensuring that we can help our constituents.
No national roll-out is ever straightforward, and it is always challenging to bring together a vast array of benefits into a single system, but the benefits of universal credit are clear: more people in work, and more people on the lowest incomes with more money in their pockets. That is why I am here to oppose the Opposition’s motion.

Grahame Morris: I am grateful to be able to speak in this important debate. I fully understand why tempers are high, given the terrible impact that universal credit has had. Ministers’ assurances about mitigating the impact of universal credit do not square with many people’s experience. Indeed, the Department’s own surveys have found that 40% of claimants are experiencing financial difficulties, that 25% cannot make an online claim—I think the rate is higher in Easington—and that 20%, or one in five, are not paid in full on time. Despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, the Department cannot measure the exact number of additional people in employment as a direct result of universal credit.
In my limited time, I must thank the charities, advice groups and campaigners who are supporting my constituents to get by on universal credit. In particular, I thank the East Durham Trust’s Malcolm Fallow, its excellent team of full-time support workers and its exceptional volunteers. Without their advocacy, and benefit and debt advice, many families in my constituency would not have a roof over their heads, or electricity  and gas on the meter. Through the East Durham Trust food bank, people have been able to put food on the table to feed their family.
Thousands of people will be waiting for health assessments for UC or ESA, so I have some practical advice, as the Secretary of State said she wanted some suggestions. While the current system remains, claimants must take steps to protect themselves. In a written answer I received on 28 March from the Minister for Disabled People, I was advised:
“Anyone who is called for a work capability assessment as part of their claim for Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit, receives an information leaflet about the assessment process. This leaflet includes details of how they can request that their assessment is recorded.”
I would advise anyone undergoing an assessment to get it recorded. I have dealt with cases where individuals have gone from zero points to 15 points, and without the recording it would not have been possible to challenge the original decision. In addition, the health assessor commissioned by the Department should provide recording equipment and answer any questions that a person has. Unfortunately, although the Department claims to be digital by default, claimants who want to make a recording of the PIP assessment have to provide their own recording equipment. That is absolutely ridiculous. I am in little doubt that that is a deliberate barrier to prevent people making claims. I urge Members to support the motion.

David Linden: In a week when chaos reigns in this Government, it seems only fitting that we talk about the policy most in chaos—universal credit. I must say to the Secretary of State that if one of my constituents went into Shettleston jobcentre and lied to their work coach, they would find that they had been sanctioned and the Government would then come down on them like a ton of bricks. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) talked about us recognising work coaches, but my problem is not with them—they do a fantastic job—but with the ideology that comes from the Department for Work and Pensions, which is taken forward by the work coaches on behalf of the Government.
The sheer misery of full UC roll-out is due to be unleashed in Glasgow later this year, so my message to the Secretary of State today could not be clearer: halt the roll-out of UC in Glasgow and fix it now. This callous Tory Government cannot sit idly by and watch as UC continues to cause social destruction within our communities. The evidence from charities, stakeholders and constituents is overwhelming: universal credit is pushing people into crisis, and crisis appears to be the new normal. Indeed, under this Government, food banks appear to be the new normal. Data from the Trussell Trust shows that where full UC roll-out is in place, the food banks have seen an average increase in usage of 52%. Glasgow North East food bank in my constituency is already at breaking point, and that is before this Government have even moved to full UC roll-out.
I want to briefly turn to the issue of housing and the impact that UC has on our housing associations. I am incredibly fortunate to have a strong network of small, local housing associations in my constituency—my biggest challenge is getting round to visit them all. If one message they give me is crystal clear, it is that UC is  pushing tenants into rent arrears and putting financial pressure on our housing associations. I have repeatedly invited the Minister for Employment to come to my constituency to see and hear at first hand the concerns of housing associations in Greater Easterhouse about full UC roll-out. I am told that he is coming to Scotland soon, and I wonder if he might even be willing, when he sums up, to put on record when he will be coming to Easterhouse to speak to the Easterhouse Housing and Regeneration Alliance and listen to its concerns. I am sure he does take them seriously.
I am conscious that colleagues want to speak and as I do not want to be a tadger by taking up too much time, I would just say that UC’s credibility lies in tatters, as does the Secretary of State’s reputation, so she should do the right thing and resign.

Ruth George: I hope that everyone on both sides of the House would agree that a Secretary of State with responsibility to all the people of this country should at the very least be listening to the NAO’s advice, to the evidence from the Department’s widespread survey and to the mountains of evidence from third parties of overwhelming hardship and suffering under UC. The DWP’s own survey showed that 40% of claimants were in hardship after nine months on UC, including more than half of disabled claimants, so it is hard to the disagree with the NAO, which said that the DWP has not shown a
“commitment to listening and responding to the hardship faced by claimants.”
The head of the NAO said:
“Maybe a change of mindset will follow the publication of the claimant survey”.
Unfortunately, so far, in the Secretary of State’s statement and DWP questions last week, we have not seen that change of heart, but I hope that, in the spirit in which she has responded today, we will start to see some listening and some learning.
A false claim about the speed of the roll-out was made not once but multiple times. When I asked the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), about the level of hardship among those on universal credit, I was told that
“the close and constructive relationship between work coaches and their clients should enable them as a team to get through any hardship that arises.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 10.]
That shows a staggering lack of listening among Ministers to what is going on in the evidence before them. As work coaches are due to see their claimant numbers increase from 85 clients per work coach to 373 clients per work coach, it will be impossible for them to have any sort of close relationship. We need a system that works.
The Secretary of State told the Select Committee this morning that she wants to listen to claimants’ experiences and to learn and said that the most disabled people will be better off under universal credit. I look forward to both those eventualities. Before coming to the House, I worked to support people on tax credits and universal credit. I set up the all-party group on universal credit to  work across party lines to make the changes that are needed to really support people who can work and those who cannot. I look forward to working with the Secretary of State and the DWP team to make sure that we see those changes happen before universal credit is rolled out to 10 million adults and half of all children.

Drew Hendry: It has been interesting to hear Government Members talk about tweaking, making adjustments and listening and so forth, because universal credit is nothing new for some people. My constituency has been suffering from it for more than five years, from pilot through to full service roll-out. I was leader of Highland Council when the pilot was unveiled, and we noticed the problems, particularly with housing, right away. We wrote letters to the DWP and spoke to Ministers in meetings, telling them of the problems. We made suggestions and cajoled and pleaded with them to listen to us.
I was looking back and found that since 2015 I have spoken in 35 debates about universal credit, asked dozens of oral and written questions about it and signed 13 different early-day motions on it. I led the Scottish National party Opposition day debate on universal credit, in addition to securing two Adjournment debates on the impact it has had on my constituents—the pain and suffering it has caused and its impact on disabled people and the low-waged. Unfortunately, not everyone has sought help because some people have not known how to do it, but those who have come for help have seen extraordinary difficulties.
I invited all Government MPs to come to a summit in Inverness and hear at first hand from the agencies and the people involved about the pain that they were going through, but that was ignored. After this period, I have come to the conclusion that the Government do not want to listen. They are determined to make sure that austerity falls on the backs of the low-waged and the disabled—those people who are most vulnerable in our society.

Alan Brown: My hon. Friend is right that the Government clearly have not listened. Did the changes that the Secretary of State brags about not come about only because the Government were defeated in the High Court when they were infringing people’s human rights?

Drew Hendry: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As I have said, we have been through the pilot and the pain of live service to the absolutely crushing delivery of full service. Resources are stretched; the jobcentre is open seven days a week; the Highland Council welfare team is stretched to the limit; staff at our constituency office are working outside hours to try to cope with the excess of inquiries; and the citizens advice bureau is under extreme pressure. All have struggled with universal credit. The Highland Council housing team has tried desperately to deal with a broken landlord system, and Highland Council rent arrears are now in the millions of pounds.
We have seen evictions, people unable to feed and clothe their children, families made destitute and poverty driving people into mental health difficulties. What is  the Government’s response: “You’re wrong. They’re wrong. It’s not happening. You’re scaremongering.” Well, that is the reality for people on universal credit; that is what is happening to them. People are suffering unimaginable hardship at the hands of this Government’s policies, and it has changed and damaged our community.
Earlier, the Secretary of State said that universal credit makes people more economically secure in life. Let me tell that to John who had 42p to last a fortnight, or to Gavin who was given £60 for a £175 rental bill. He had nothing else; he was in debt already. He cannot even eat, let alone turn on the power or do anything else. What about Ian and his two-year-old who had to rely on food banks and go for days without electricity? A woman from Grantown-on-Spey had to travel to Inverness to hand in childcare vouchers. It was an hour and a half each way on public transport—three hours on a bus—and the jobcentre then lost her claim. What do we say to those who are terminally ill who are asked to report to work coaches?
This affects people. More and more people are falling into poverty. Food banks are becoming a necessity rather than a helping hand. I have seen self-employed people lose their payment because their annual income has been counted as monthly income. The problems go on and on. The Secretary of State, from what she has said over the past week, has been at her worst. She should go, as should this failed, miserable system.

Mike Amesbury: Despite being new at the Dispatch Box, I am under no illusion about the fact that people inside and outside this Chamber may shortly have plans to watch something other than my response to today’s debate. I will seek to respond in a manner that is timely, but that also does justice to the many thousands of people for whom the realities of universal credit are more than just a game—they are an everyday injustice.
Regardless of the result tonight—and I wish my team England well—we can all appreciate the manner in which Gareth Southgate has taken over an underperforming team and turned it around. If only those in charge at the DWP had a similar approach to leadership and accountability. Over the past week, we have seen a Secretary of State who, when called on to show leadership and humility, chose to lecture rather than to listen, to sow division rather than to build consensus and refuse to make a thorough apology at every point.
In fact, the Secretary of State’s attempts to explain away a number of misinterpretations of the National Audit Office facts were so fantastical that they reminded me of an episode of the children’s programme “Jackanory” or of Trumpisms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) would phrase them. I am talking about a world where pause and slow are fast; where failure is success; and where sign-off is tune out, forget and denial. It is a place where the trusted and respected National Audit Office, armed with empirical data and facts to give good counsel, is almost dismissed as an agent of fake news.
We have the evidence and facts that were signed off by the DWP on 8 June. Here are some of the facts: 113,000 claimants paid late and two thirds of disabled people with limited capacity to work not paid  on time. Then there is the continual claim, well documented by Members in the House, that 200,000 people have been put into work, which is not evidenced and not proven.
The contributions today show just how important it is that this Government radically fix and pause universal credit. We are not short of evidence that the current system is failing. The current impact of the roll-out of universal credit has united housing associations across the UK. They are clear that this policy is causing debt, suffering and hardship for the families they house. The Child Poverty Action Group’s early warning system is pointing towards what it says is likely to be a systemic problem.
The Secretary of State may have struggled to accept the NAO’s criticism last week in its unprecedented open letter, but there can be no room for misinterpreting what we have heard today from many MPs across the Chamber: tale after tale of delays, refusals and mistakes, causing suffering, hardship and misery to the very people this policy is supposed to support.
Last week, the Secretary of State went to great lengths to defend this policy, by explaining how universal credit must be judged on the most up-to-date information. Well, it was, and the Department signed it off. The cases and experiences that have been raised today show what is happening here, out there and now. We are talking about real lives, real time and real people—not crocodile tears. It is time to stop. It time to pause. It is time to fix it.

Alok Sharma: I believe that each of us in this House, whatever our political persuasion, came into politics to help build a fairer society. Indeed, that sense of fairness is part of the very DNA of the British people, and the desire for fairness extends to our welfare system—a system where we support the vulnerable, those looking to get into work and those wanting to increase their hours. That is precisely what universal credit does. It takes a complicated benefits system and simplifies it. Under this system, the claimant is provided with one-to-one support for the first time by their work coach. This support is making a real difference to progress into employment and is increasing people’s earnings.
We have published research that shows that, once people are on universal credit, they get into work fast and stay in work longer and that they will be earning more. Just last month, we published a survey that showed that the percentage of those in employment almost doubles between the point of making the claim and nine months into universal credit. For every extra hour worked, people get to keep more of their own money. Under universal credit, work absolutely pays.
The Opposition have said that we are ploughing ahead with the universal credit roll-out. This argument simply does not hold water. We are listening, learning and improving, getting the delivery of universal credit right, with a roll-out taking place at a measured rate. Let me give an example. In the autumn Budget, we announced a £1.5 billion package of extra support for claimants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out precisely what was in that package. We listened; we acted; and we helped claimants.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alok Sharma: I will not give way.
What did the Opposition do? They cynically voted against the regulations that allowed the £1.5 billion of support to be made available to claimants. I get that the Opposition are there to oppose, but that should not be at the cost of helping the very people they claim to represent. Opposition Members have raised individual cases of claimants who have been suffering hardship. How many of those hon. Members have looked those individual claimants in the eye and explained why they voted to deny them the help and support that they needed? [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Minister has listened to all the questions and is now answering them, so he should not be shouted at by hon. Members on either side of the House.

Alok Sharma: Let us talk about the help that the work coaches are giving. The NAO report says:
“A survey of live service claimants found that claimant satisfaction levels were similar to those on legacy benefits and in our visits to jobcentres we observed good relationships between work coaches and claimants.”
The support is available, and it is working and helping people to get into work.

Neil Coyle: rose—

David Linden: Will the Minister give way?

Alok Sharma: No, I will not give way.
Thanks to the policies of this Conservative Government, we are at record levels of employment. Once universal credit is fully rolled out, we will support another 200,000 people into work. The tone and the wording of Labour’s motion today has been disappointing and, frankly, ill-judged in personally attacking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My right hon. Friend set out in her speech some of the positive changes that she has made, with the support of the whole brilliant DWP team. She has instigated these changes since coming into her role. Labour Members should actually be thanking her for her proactivity, not seeking to censure her today. They have offered absolutely no solutions today—just scaremongering. Their only answer appears to be to let people languish in a legacy system that effectively washes its hands of them.
When we go forward with universal credit, of course we are going to listen. But at the heart of universal credit there lies a very simple but incredibly powerful idea—that we should help people to achieve their full potential, and that is precisely what this Government are going to do.
Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 268, Noes 305.

Question accordingly negatived.

DEFENCE INDUSTRY AND SHIPBUILDING

Nia Griffith: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the important contribution of the defence industry to the UK; calls on the Government to support the UK defence industry by taking into account the economic and employment benefits to the UK when awarding contracts and to publish a full, overarching defence industrial strategy; and further calls on the Government to make the competition for the Fleet Solid Support ships contract a UK-only competition to maximise the return on that contract.
Today could be a significant step forward for things coming home. Of course, I am talking about the contract for the fleet solid support ships. As a proud island nation, the UK shipbuilding industry is vital for our prosperity and defence—a message that workers’ representatives from the shipyards spelled out loudly and clearly to Members yesterday. The industry makes a substantial economic contribution, directly employing some 23,000 people and contributing £1.7 billion a year to the UK economy.
Throughout our history and to the present day, the industry has supplied our Royal Navy with the ships that it requires, thereby playing a crucial role in the defence of these islands. Our ships contribute to many NATO and EU missions, including Operation Atalanta, which combats piracy in the gulf of Aden and off the horn of Africa, and they were vital in the humanitarian relief efforts following last year’s hurricanes in the Caribbean.
In the light of events this week, I will not suggest which ship the Government most closely resemble, but the phrase “rearranging the deckchairs” comes to mind. I know that Members on both sides of the House want the industry to thrive, and the Government have an important role to play in that regard. I was disappointed to hear in Defence questions on Monday that the Government will not publish the conclusions of the modernising defence programme this week, as had long been promised. Instead, we have the Secretary of State’s less than inspiring commitment of “aiming to” introduce the headline findings before the summer recess. We wait with bated breath.

John Redwood: I welcome the Opposition’s approach. We want a strong Navy and more ships built in Britain. Anything we can do together to achieve that will be greatly welcome, and I trust that the Government will agree.

Nia Griffith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent intervention.
I hope that the delay will allow Ministers to reflect on the overwhelming case for an active defence industrial strategy that recognises the immense value of building in Britain and takes a longer term view of the orders that the Government will place, giving industry the confidence to invest in the UK and to plan for a steady stream of work.
Long-term planning is vital, not just for the prime contractors but for the supply chain companies and foundation industries such as the steel industry. It gives them the time to gear up to fulfil orders, and the certainty that they need to justify additional investment. A clear strategy needs to balance getting the very best  value for the taxpayer—a crucial consideration, especially when the defence budget is under such strain—with the needs of our armed forces and defences. This would allow us to defend sovereign capabilities, support UK manufacturing and continue to develop the highly skilled jobs and apprenticeships that allow us to compete on the global stage. Research and development must be at the heart of any industrial strategy, promoting links with our universities and technical colleges. We should recognise the need to plan for the skill sets we will need in the future, and to inspire our young people, both girls and boys, with the challenge and excitement of pursuing a career in our world industry.
We have had the national shipbuilding strategy and the combat air strategy is being developed, so rather than just the defence industrial refresh it would make perfect sense for the Government to come forward with an overarching and far-reaching defence industrial strategy that would give industry the certainty it requires.

Jim Cunningham: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed, but Rolls-Royce is in the market to sell off its industrial marine division—the power generation division. Nobody knows yet who is likely to buy it, but it is likely that once again our defence is going to be manufactured abroad instead of being protected in this country.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the need for certainty and long-term planning, so we can give business the confidence to invest here.
As well as ensuring that our armed forces have the very best equipment, a core objective of our defence industrial strategy should be to promote our national prosperity. We can only do that properly if we factor in the true value of defence contracts to the UK economy. Buying British is not just about the basic fact that a UK-based company will pay UK tax; it is also about the broader economic and social benefits, and the value of the skills and apprenticeships that the industry creates.

Chris Stephens: Is it not the case that if the fleet solid support ships were built in the UK, 20% of that cost could be recovered by the workers working on those ships paying tax and national insurance?

Nia Griffith: Indeed—at least that amount.
Reports by Oxford Economics highlight that the UK defence industry has an output multiplier of 2.3, meaning that £100 million in UK industry generates some £230 million to the UK economy. Its reports also highlight that each additional job created in the manufacturing element of the defence industry results in a further 1.8 jobs being created in the wider economy.
At present, the Government do not routinely factor in these wider socioeconomic values when making a procurement decision. We on the Labour Benches believe that to be a serious mistake. It is particularly anomalous when companies that bid with the Ministry of Defence are quite used to having to set out the socioeconomic value of contracts when bidding with Governments of other countries. Labour is committed to expanding the definition of good value to include wider employment, industrial or economic factors when making procurement decisions.

Philip Dunne: I am listening very attentively to what the hon. Lady is saying. I am sure she will be aware that in March this year HM Treasury published, after a seven year review, a new definition of managing public money, which specifically allows, under UK procurement rules, for the concept of social value to be taken into account. She is therefore asking the Government to do something they have already decided to.

Nia Griffith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I congratulate him on his excellent report, which he presented on Monday. I note that in it he recommends that UK prosperity should be taken into account in all major procurement decisions. I welcome that statement.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) raises an interesting point, but the issue is not so much about the policy as about the implementation of it. That is what the Treasury and others have got to start doing.

Nia Griffith: Indeed. When we speak to defence contractors, we find it is a sad fact that they are not being required to put those details into the bids they make. We very much hope to see that change. I hope that this is an urgent step on that way. The approach has been endorsed by the Defence Committee and has received the support of the trade body, ADS, as well as the defence trade unions such as Unite, GMB and Prospect.
The contract for the fleet solid support ships would bring immense value to this country if it were awarded to a UK bidder. Our carriers, frigates and destroyers will, of course, always be built in the UK, but with ships such as the fleet solid support vessels, the Government have a choice to make, and Labour Members believe that they are making the wrong one by choosing to put this order out to international competition. I know that some in the Conservative party like to blame everything on the European Union, but the fact is that the Government would be able to procure these ships in the UK under existing EU law, and there are compelling reasons for doing so. The GMB trade union has estimated that the ships would support 6,700 jobs if they were built in UK yards and up to £285 million of the £800 million potential UK spend would be returned to the Treasury through taxation.
The case for buying British is clear, and it would be a betrayal of our UK workers if this contract were allowed to go overseas, so we need to question what is really driving Ministers to put this out to overseas bidders. Perhaps it is the view that there will be a lower price tag for the MOD. We all want to get the best value for money, and we are aware of the difficulties that the MOD is having in balancing its budget, but this short-sighted, narrow, silo mentality about what might look good on the MOD’s balance sheet ignores both the benefits to the UK economy of building the ships in Britain and the costs of not doing so. We as taxpayers all want to see value for our money, and taxpayers up and down the country would far rather see that money spent on supporting skilled jobs for workers here in the UK than see it spent abroad, knowing that some 30% of the money spent on wages will come back directly to the  Treasury as taxation, and that the spending power of those workers and their families will sustain local businesses in their communities.

Julian Lewis: I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Lady is making, but the consequence of going down the route that she recommends, and which I am inclined to support, is that the black hole in the defence equipment budget will become even greater. If we accept that there needs to be an uplift in the defence budget to be able to make this sort of investment and get the long-term gains that she describes, will she confirm that her party’s policy is to support an increase in the defence budget?

Nia Griffith: As I just outlined, it is extremely important that we take into account the way that the money can be brought back into the Treasury, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s message will be well understood by Government Front Benchers.
I will make a bit of progress. As taxpayers, we all want to see value for our money, but we recognise the consequences if we do not spend the money in the UK—the immediate impact on workers and their families, with workers unemployed or able only to find much lower-paid work, leaving them and their families much more reliant on social security payments and tax credits. All that is a cost to the taxpayer and, sadly, there are all too often the hidden costs of the increased risk of mental health problems and family break-up. While workers and their families will take the hardest hit, the wider consequences will be far-reaching and long term. Shipyards will close. We will lose a skilled workforce and a generation of apprentices.
If UK companies do not win these contracts, they will have less money to spend on research and development, and that bodes ill for the future. We have to stay ahead in this game to stay in the game. We know that UK-based companies are interested in putting in a bid, but they will be less inclined to if they think that this order will simply be handed overseas, as happened with the MARS—Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability—tankers. Bidding is a lengthy and expensive process, and companies understandably do not want to take that risk if there is no chance that they will succeed. Awarding this contract to an overseas manufacturer would be particularly galling when we note the subsidies, both direct and indirect, that benefit many foreign yards.
To those who argue that UK companies should simply compete on a level playing field with international bidders, I say that the point is that currently the field is simply not level. For example, the South Korean shipbuilding industry has been the subject of a great deal of criticism for the level of state aid it receives. Shipbuilding is a significant element of the country’s economy, and state-run lenders have injected billions of dollars into the industry. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has found that German yards benefit from targeted research and development, from funds for redeveloping and upgrading yards and from regional development funding, while significant potential bidders in Italy, France and Spain are owned in whole or part by their respective Governments. Rather than allowing this valuable contract to disappear overseas, the Government should do the right thing and put UK yards and workers first.
Of course, in this global marketplace, I recognise that not every contract can or should be delivered in the UK, and where we buy from abroad or work in collaboration with allies to develop assets, we should prioritise work-share agreements to create jobs and boost growth in the UK.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a poor track record in doing what she suggests? Under the P-8 and Apache contracts with Boeing, for example, there is very little work share and very few jobs coming back into the UK.

Nia Griffith: Yes, indeed; as my hon. Friend says, the Government have a poor track record. It is a great shame that so many opportunities have been wasted.

Philip Dunne: I cannot allow that to stand. I was in post when the P-8 Poseidon contract was placed, and an integral part of the relationship with Boeing was an understanding, now being fulfilled through contracts, that it would make a significant investment in RAF Lossiemouth. As a result, £400 million is now going into that base, in part to support and maintain those aircraft and other aircraft operated by our allies. Those aircraft will be coming here to the UK to be maintained and serviced. That means UK jobs and UK investment.

Nia Griffith: It is incumbent on the Government, though, to look again and strain every muscle to get the very best work-share agreements wherever they exist.

John Spellar: The argument from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), whom I congratulate on his report, does not hold water. Of course, if we are buying these planes, we will need maintenance facilities, and if that is being done by industry, industry will provide those facilities, but they are service facilities for the RAF, and there might even be work from abroad. Where, though, are these planes being manufactured? They are being manufactured in the United States, with very little return of work coming to the UK. They have been allowed to get away with a very cheap deal.

Nia Griffith: On that note, I shall make progress.

Douglas Ross: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Nia Griffith: One more time.

Douglas Ross: As the Member of Parliament for Moray, which is home to RAF Lossiemouth, I have to take exception to the points made from the Labour Benches. This is a major investment—£400 million and hundreds of new jobs—in Moray and Scotland and is welcomed locally by every man, woman and child. They will look very poorly at the Labour party today trying to say it is not good enough for the area.

Nia Griffith: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) clearly explained, a much better deal could have been done.

Paul Sweeney: The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talks about the benefits to his constituency, but what about the people who live near Woodford, the BAE Systems site in Manchester, who in 2010 watched as the Nimrod  MRA4 programme, 94% complete, was smashed up by JCBs and Britain’s capacity to build large fixed-wing aircraft permanently destroyed? Was that not the total destruction of British industrial capability—something we are trying to avoid in this debate today?

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and now I shall conclude, as I am sure that hon. Members are thinking about what they will be watching later this evening.
When I was very young, I remember not only the excitement of England winning the World cup in 1966, but the I’m Backing Britain campaign. Before they go off to support the English football team this evening, I urge Members from across the House to recognise that the order for the fleet solid support ships represent a prime example of one that can and should be awarded here. I urge Members to back British industry and to vote to build them in Britain.

Eleanor Laing: The question is as on the Order Paper. Tobias Ellwood!

Tobias Ellwood: That was an introduction and a half. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is a real pleasure to take part in this important debate.
Looking at the motion, I see much on which we are in agreement, and looking around the Chamber, I see many of the usual characters who wholly support not only the armed forces and the armed forces industry, but our defence posture. Defence investment is important, and my view—I do not know whether it is related to what may happen later in the day—is that we need to spread that message more widely to our other parliamentary colleagues.
Let me approach the issue from two perspectives. First, why must we invest in our maritime capability? Why, from a British perspective, is it important for us to do that? Secondly, in aiming to meet whatever is our ambition and create whatever architecture we wish to create, how can we most wisely spend the taxpayer’s money on defence? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) focused on that as well. What is a wise use of taxpayers’ money—or should we automatically give it to shipbuilders in the United Kingdom with no questions asked? That, I think, is at the core of the debate: the issue of where the line should be drawn.
Let me step back from the details for a second, and reflect on the importance of the security and prosperity of our island nation in the context of the seas. For centuries our world-renowned Royal Navy has protected our shores and our people, and has safeguarded our interests. As we mark the end of the first world war, we remember that in that war—and, indeed, in the second world war as well—it was the aircraft carriers, the frigates, the destroyers, and the other warships built by men and women across the country that kept our fortunes afloat.
Today, as the hon. Lady said, our Royal Navy is busier than ever, defending our trade routes, leading the fight against global terror, protecting shipping lanes from piracy, tackling illegal migration in the Mediterranean, and, obviously, playing a leading role in NATO’s maritime capability. Its activities have ranged from war-fighting  to nation-building to peacekeeping, and from interdiction to littoral work—and humanitarian work, as we saw in the Caribbean last summer. In a post-Brexit world, however, there is an ever greater need for us to project our influence and lead by example in retaining the most sophisticated and potent Navy in Europe, to help shape the world around us and to keep ourselves and others safe.
I make no apology for raising the wider issue of defence spending—which has already been raised by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—at the very time when the same issue is being discussed more widely at the NATO summit. The Defence Secretary has succeeded in elevating the need for increased defence investment as threats diversify and become ever more complex. As I said in Defence questions on Monday,
“We are entering a phenomenon of constant confrontation by state and non-state actors.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 691.]
We are not in a phase of war, and we are not in a phase of peace.
Let us remind ourselves of the very first line of the national security strategy and strategic defence and security review:
“Our national security depends on our economic security, and vice versa.”
It is important for us to persuade all members of all parties that we must invest, because if we fail to do so, our capabilities will diminish at the very time threats are increasing. We need to convey that message to the Treasury. Let me repeat that as the world becomes more dangerous, our post-Brexit economy is ever more reliant on security for access to our international markets. Some 95% of our trade still goes by sea, and we need to protect our interests there.

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this peroration, I will of course give way, just to re-energise myself. If we allow that trade to be affected by the changes made in the world around us by nations that choose to breach the rules we helped set up after the second world war, there will not be any money for any Government Departments, let alone the MOD. I hope we can join together to persuade more of our colleagues about that, and not just the stalwarts and defence fans, so to speak, who are here today.

Grahame Morris: I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s flow. I do not think any Member on either side of the House would disagree about the importance of the Royal Navy and the incredible job it does, but our point on this side of the House—I suspect shared by some on the Government Benches—is that shipbuilding is a vital strategic industry. There are many benefits apart from producing the very best ships in the world, such as maintaining employment and a skills base that could itself generate more economic activity. I hope the Minister will take that into account, and not least the importance of the supply chain.

Tobias Ellwood: There is nothing in that that I would disagree with; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will come on to what we are doing to promote Royal  Navy ships; we will come on to the core fact of what is a Royal Navy ship and what is a fleet auxiliary ship, which again goes to the heart of the difference in how these different types of ship are procured.

Jamie Stone: Notwithstanding what has just been said, surely the Minister will accept that whenever we buy a Royal Navy warship, an auxiliary ship, an aircraft or whatever abroad, we never own all the intellectual property associated with that product. We are buying F-35s, which are splendid aircraft, but we will never know the fine details of the box of tricks that makes them work, and that is a disadvantage to our country.

Tobias Ellwood: I will move on to our maritime capability and our procurement process, but first please allow me to finish the bigger case of why it is important that we invest here.
I am making the point that although we must persuade Members of Parliament, we also need to persuade the nation. This is the same nation that enjoyed the fly-past yesterday and that expects us to step forward as a global influencer, but I am afraid is perhaps worryingly naive about the need to invest, because that is not a doorstep issue; it does not come up very much on the election circuit compared with health, education or transport. I think all Members would accept that point.
Our defence posture matters; it is part of our national identity. It allows us to sit with authority at the international top table and help shape global events. Other nations and allies look to us; they look to Britain to step forward, and to lead in the air, on land, on the sea and now on the cyber-plane as well. That ambition could be lost in a generation if we do not continue to invest; that capability, and desire to step forward, could be lost.
When we look at the current challenges facing Europe, the middle east and parts of Africa, we see that we are the best in Europe in terms of security, military capability, and intelligence and policing. We have an opportunity to leverage that position of strength as we craft a new post-Brexit relationship with our European allies and take a leading role in NATO, but we can only realistically do that with a sensible increase in our defence spending, which includes investment in ships.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister is right to say we need to build support not only across this Chamber among Members who are not present, but from across the nation, about the imperative benefits associated with investment in defence. I hope the Minister agrees that one of the ways to do that is by injecting a sense of national pride in our defence industry: by increasing the connectivity between our yards and our people, and between our people and their representatives. In Harland and Wolff in east Belfast that is exactly what we expect. It wants to be part of this investment and of this country’s defence infrastructure, and it looks forward to playing its part and building its support locally.

Tobias Ellwood: During my time as a Member of Parliament I have seen a change in the posture of the Royal Navy that we can all be proud of. What is the Type 45? It is the best in its class. What is the Type 26? It will be the best  in its class. What is the Type 31? It is a change in approach to modular design, which will be exactly what we need for export. This is what Britain is doing. We invented the aircraft carrier; we were the ones who first put that concept together. That innovation that is inherent in our DNA is what is allowing us to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman says.

Chris Stephens: I thank the Minister for promoting modular build in the UK. If modular build is good enough for the Type 31 frigate, surely it is good enough for fleet support ships, which could be built in the UK on the same basis.

Tobias Ellwood: I have hinted that I will come to that in a second, but there is a distinction between fleet support ships that employ civilians and Royal Navy ships that employ Royal Navy personnel. There is a distinction between the two from a security perspective.
Going back to the point about value for money for the taxpayer, the Defence Secretary, the Procurement Minister and I all want to ensure that we are able to utilise the advanced skill sets in our defence industry across the UK, but the bottom line has to be value for money. Let us take as an example the ships that were recently purchased in Korea. The price was half the British value. Is the hon. Member for Llanelli saying that she would pay double the price for the same auxiliary support ships?

Nia Griffith: The Minister needs to take into consideration the fact that something like 36% of that spend would immediately come back to the Treasury in taxation. There would also be a knock-on effect for all the small businesses that would benefit from that money being spent out into the local economy. We would also have to take into account the cost of social security if those people were unemployed, as well as the disastrous cost of losing our shipbuilding industry altogether. Does he recognise that if we do not invest now to create a drum beat of orders, we could see the shipbuilding industry going the same way that the Tories let the coalmining industry go?

Tobias Ellwood: Now we really are seeing the difference between us, if the hon. Lady is comparing this situation with the coalmining industry. Is that where this debate is going? I certainly hope not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I am suddenly very popular, but may I just finish answering that point? Then perhaps we can go round houses.
This is a serious point. The hon. Lady did not answer the question on whether she would endorse purchasing a British-built ship that cost twice the amount as one built elsewhere. I hear what she says about the knock-on impacts for small and medium-sized businesses and so on, but a third of the money being spent comes back to Britain anyway. That is part of the contract that has been secured by the Procurement Minister. So in fact, we are already doing as she says, but taxpayers are paying half the price that they would have been paying had we purchased something from Britain. That is the situation that we face, and without wishing to sound too political, that is the difference between us on the Government Benches, who want to be fiscally responsible with taxpayers’ money, and those who simply want to  pay for anything. I absolutely want it to be British, but we have to have value for money. Also, it is wrong to suggest that there is no shipbuilding capacity coming through. I have just mentioned the aircraft carrier, the Type 26 and the Type 45, in which there is continuing interest, and we also have the Type 31 and the offshore patrol vessels that are coming through. So there is plenty out there to keep our capability alive and busy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: There is so much choice that I do not know where to start. Let us go with the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar).

John Spellar: Will the Minister confirm that the Korean shipbuilder that took this contract, DSME, underbid and actually lost significant sums of money on the contract? It was not a fair contract, and because of its general business practices, it came very close to going bankrupt and had to be bailed out.

Tobias Ellwood: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put it like that, because I was worried that he was going to say that state aid had been involved. I am sure that he would not suggest that that was the case, because I know him better than that, even though that was hinted at by those on his Front Bench. That was the commercial decision that the company took, but we are left in a situation where Britain is getting value for the taxpayer’s money.

Kevan Jones: The Minister is talking complete and utter nonsense. On the military afloat reach and sustainability contract, there was no UK bid, and the reason for that was that the industry was told that the contract was going abroad. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley has just said, the Korean bid was underbid and basically bankrolled by the South Korean Government.

Tobias Ellwood: The right hon. Gentleman sits down and folds his arms, but there was a UK bid.

There was not.

Tobias Ellwood: There was a UK bid.

Philip Dunne: May I help my right hon. Friend?

Tobias Ellwood: I would like to move on, so I am going to make some progress and perhaps invite the Minister responsible for procurement, who will be concluding the debate, to go into the detail of the bid. If Labour is taking a position of only taking British offers and not looking abroad, it is not taking taxpayer value for money into consideration.

Leo Docherty: Does the Minister agree that the picture painted by Labour Members is rather inaccurate? Due to the remarkable scale of investment, not least in our new Type 26 fleet, the picture is one of extraordinary investment activity, so to portray the industry as being on its knees is, frankly, a gross mischaracterisation.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I want to move on to the second question that I posed, which is how we can best meet the ambition of optimising our industry’s capabilities while spending taxpayers’ money wisely.
The UK is a world leader in the defence sector. In 2016, the UK defence sector had a turnover of £23 billion, £5.9 billion of which was export orders. The MOD is the sector’s most important customer, spending £18.7 billion with the UK industry and directly supporting 123,000 jobs in every part of the UK. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), in his report that was published on Monday, shines further light on the important contribution that defence makes UK prosperity, and I pay credit to him for his work. The report shows that there is more that we can do, which should be welcomed by both sides of the House.

Leo Docherty: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is very keen.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful for that compliment. The Minister is describing an interesting picture. Does he agree that aviation and aerospace are an important part of that picture? Does he also agree that activities in and around Farnborough, including the international airshow, are vital? Will he confirm that he will be attending the airshow next week? If he is not, I will happily arrange that for him.

Tobias Ellwood: We have wandered away from ships a little, but my hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to the RAF for its event yesterday, and for what it has done and continues to do. The Royal International Air Tattoo starts at RAF Fairford on Friday, and we have the Farnborough airshow next week, where we will be launching our air strategy, based on the same principles as for shipping, which will be exciting.
Returning to ships and the role of the maritime sector, we should remind ourselves of the significant changes to the Royal Navy fleet. We have two incredible aircraft carriers coming into service, a new generation of Dreadnought-class submarines, the Type 45 destroyers—the most advanced in the world—and the new Type 26 global combat ships. We also have the Type 31e frigates—e for export—which have deliberately been designed with a modular concept. Depending on the export need, which could be interdiction, surface support or humanitarian purposes, its parts can be interchanged simply to adapt to the local requirement. This is an exciting time, and all the ships will be built in the United Kingdom.[Official Report, 24 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 7MC.]
To achieve our ambitions, we need a strong shipbuilding industry as part of the wider maritime sector. As the Opposition spokeswoman said, more than 100,000 people work in this country’s maritime and marine sectors, including in the shipyards that supply parts and support equipment to keep the great industry alive.

Paul Sweeney: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: I will, but I need to make progress, as other people want to speak and there may be something else that we all want to go to later.

Paul Sweeney: The Minister refers to shipyards. He might be aware that a deal was done in 2013 so that, in return for closing down operations in Portsmouth, capital investment would be made on the Clyde to make it a world-class centre of shipbuilding expertise, but that deal was never followed through with. He talks about creating a world-class industry, so why has he  failed to follow through on the investment proposals that would make the Clyde world class and restore that capability?

Tobias Ellwood: We are investing both in the Clyde and in Portsmouth. Looking back over the past few decades, let us be honest that although we have world-class shipbuilding capability, efficiency has not been what it could be. Successive Governments could have done better—we put up our hands up to that—which was why it was all the more important to create a shipbuilding strategy. We commissioned John Parker’s report so that we would be able to understand—

Chris Stephens: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: I will make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because other Members wish to speak. Let me make some progress and I will give way shortly.

Nia Griffith: Does the Minister recognise that the Parker report very clearly mentions having a “drumbeat” of orders? That is vital to the industry so that we do not lose skills, so that we do not fall behind on R&D and so that we can remain in the game. Does he agree that that is important and that these ships could contribute to that drumbeat of orders?

Tobias Ellwood: I do not disagree. I try to be less partisan than others who jump up at the Dispatch Box, and I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that drumbeat of orders, but it should not come at any price. We need to make sure it blends with what is built for the Royal Navy and for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. We have accepted every single recommendation made by John Parker, and we thank him for his very wise report.

Chris Stephens: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman is sitting on the edge of his seat. Obviously I cannot refuse to give way.

Chris Stephens: The Minister is very generous. What did John Parker’s report recommend for how the fleet support ships should be built? I am very curious. Can he tell us what the Parker report says about fleet support ships and the exact page on which it says that?

Tobias Ellwood: The Parker report is about our approach to shipbuilding, and it has led to our shipbuilding strategy and our defence industrial strategy.

Philip Dunne: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: If I can make some progress, I may actually be able to answer the question.

Philip Dunne: Will the Minister give way?

Tobias Ellwood: I am glad that there is nothing happening later.

Philip Dunne: My right hon. Friend has been generous about my report, which was published on Monday, and I am grateful for the other comments about the report   by Members on both sides of the House. On page 53 of the report, I refer to the fleet solid support ship and make the point that the fact that we are currently a member of the European Union means that we are precluded from taking advantage of the article 346 exemption to require that ship to be built in the UK. One of my recommendations is that we should take advantage of the opportunity of Brexit to consider the opportunity, after we leave the EU on 29 March 2019, to build UK content into our own procurement rules, which might allow us to change the position, but we cannot do that today.

John Spellar: Not true.

Tobias Ellwood: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) to understand the full picture. My hon. Friend is correct that EU regulations provide guidance on building those ships. The regulations do not apply to royal naval ships because, from a security perspective, every sovereign nation is allowed to bypass them, but the rules absolutely apply to non-royal naval ships—as in Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships—that employ civilians on board. I encourage hon. Members to read the report before judging what my hon. Friend has just said.
Moving back to what I was saying, we must have an honest debate about what is happening, which is why we need to develop a modern, efficient, productive and competitive marine sector that allows us to build on the work that has been done on the Clyde, in the north, in Belfast, in Barrow, in the north-east, in the north-west and in the south-west of England. We have incredible capability, and I am pleased to see so many hon. Members representing constituencies in those areas in the Chamber today.
Our new shipbuilding strategy sets out exactly how we can achieve such a marine sector. We will continue to build Royal Navy ships only in the UK while encouraging international collaboration in harnessing open competition for other naval ships. Our new framework will ensure that the impact of UK prosperity will be considered as part of our procurement decisions. The 2015 strategic defence and security review created a new security objective: promoting our prosperity. Competition and strategic choice remain at the heart of our approach, but we recognise that there are several different models for working successfully with the industry, and we need to take further steps to bolster that and make the right decisions to enable a strong partnership between the Government and industry.[Official Report, 23 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 7MC.]
That is part of the whole Government approach, spearheaded by the national industrial strategy, with its mutually reinforcing focus on driving productivity and supporting innovation, which provides a strong and clear policy framework in which industry can invest and grow. Key to that is how defence procurement might build economic value by strengthening UK productivity and industrial capability, including at a local level, and boosting exports sustainably. We recognise that responsible exports are now widely accepted as having a part to play in our wider national defence and prosperity objective. They are considered to be an opportunity, not a burden.
Sir John Parker’s 2016 independent review made a series of recommendations about improvements we can   make, and, as I said, I am pleased that we will be accepting all of them. He did place emphasis on the dysfunctional relationships between government and industry. Old ships were retained in service well beyond their service date, with all the attendant high costs, and it is important that that changes. So our new strategy is founded on three pillars. The first is better planning, giving industry greater certainty and predictability. We are providing a 30-year Royal Navy shipbuilding masterplan to guide all future naval shipbuilding decisions, and to document the number and types of ships in which we will invest over the next three decades.
The second pillar is a new approach to design and construction. We want to challenge naval standards and introduce new ones, forcing through advances in design, in new materials such as composites, and in manufacturing methods. Our new carriers are a prime example of that. They are built in blocks, with parts built in different parts of Britain, drawing on the expertise of 10,000 people, and being brought together from centres of excellence from across the country. Thirdly, we want to focus on building exports, where there is an opportunity, as the Type 31 will be the first frigate for export since the 1970s. We know that more sales can cut costs in procurement over time and give us the potential to buy even more cutting-edge ships.[Official Report, 24 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 8MC.]
For now, for reasons of national security, the shipbuilding strategy sets out that warships will be built and integrated in the UK via competition between UK shipyards. However, for the purposes of shipbuilding only, the national shipbuilding strategy defines warships as destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers. All other naval ships, including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, as well as other Royal Navy manned ships, such as patrol, mine countermeasures, hydrographic and amphibious ships, will be subject to open competition—that means international competition. That remains where the difference lies between us and the Opposition, but it is the cornerstone of our defence procurement policy. I remind the hon. Member for Llanelli that she talked repeatedly about value for the taxpayer, and it is important we understand that. I hope that there is a compromise whereby where we want to and can, we will utilise British shipbuilding capability, but when it comes in at twice the cost of an overseas opportunity, we will have to be very careful about which decision we make.

Roger Gale: I may have misunderstood—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Minister will have to sit down.

Tobias Ellwood: I was just grabbing some water.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I don’t care what the Minister thinks he is doing; I am just telling him what he has to do.

Roger Gale: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I may have misunderstood the Minister, and I know it is not the custom to ask a question to which one does not know the answer, but I think he said that Royal Naval ships were confined to aircraft carriers, frigates and destroyers. Would that not also apply to any replacement amphibious craft that we might need?[Official Report, 24 July 2018, Vol. 645, c. 8MC.]

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that would be considered royal naval class, so not manned by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
It is important that, as we move forward, we look closely at value for taxpayers’ money.

Mary Glindon: The GMB commissioned a Survation survey that found that 74% of people want these ships to be built in this country. Do not public opinion and the pride that people would feel if the ships were built here matter as much as value for money?

Tobias Ellwood: I can only say that I hope that 100% of people would like ships to be built in the UK, but I also think that 100% of fiscally responsible people would like value for taxpayers’ money. That is the difference that this debate will illustrate.
Since the strategy was launched in 2017, the Government have worked closely with our partners in industry and made significant progress on our commitments under the shipbuilding strategy, not least through our continued investment in five River class offshore patrol vessels that are being built on the Clyde. Those ships have safeguarded industrial capability through a contract worth around £635 million, which is exactly what the shadow Secretary of State wants to see. We must make sure that there is this drumbeat of work, not only so that none of the shipyards face closure, but because it is essential so that we can continue to act when we require ships to be built for the Royal Navy. The first batch of the cutting-edge Type 26 frigates that are being built under the £3.7 billion contract with BAE Systems are also being built on the Clyde.

Paul Sweeney: The Minister mentions the River class batch 2, which was primarily designed to maintain production at Govan shipyard until the Type 26 was of sufficient maturity to begin construction. Does he accept that the only reason why Govan shipyard is open today is because a Royal Fleet Auxiliary order for the Wave Ruler was placed there in 1999 to keep the yard open until the Type 45 build could start? The only reason why that yard exists today is because the Government placed that Royal Fleet Auxiliary order with Govan, and that is exactly what we are arguing for today: to maintain these builds in the UK to maintain industrial capability.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman sort of makes my point. We need to make sure that we bear in mind not only prosperity and British capability, but value for money for the taxpayer.
The Type 26 will offer a leading anti-submarine warfare capability for its planned 25-year service life, providing critical protection to the continuous at-sea deterrent and maritime task groups. We are currently in dialogue with industry on the strategy’s flagship Type 31 frigate programme, which is worth £1.25 billion for five modern warships. They will be flexible and adaptable in design, as I said earlier, and part of a balanced Royal Navy fleet that will be deployed across operations in support of the UK’s maritime task group.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the launch of our fleet solid support ships programme, which is procuring vessels for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary through  international competition. They will provide munitions, stores and provisions to support maritime and amphibious-based task groups at sea.
On exports, we are delighted that Australia is considering the Type 26 global combat ship and BAE as the preferred tenderer for its future frigate programme. The consequence of our creating something that other countries want is that further countries have been prompted to look carefully at the Type 26. That is exactly what is happening in our discussions with Canada. This is exactly where we want to go: we want to make sure that we have the capability to build something that we can export, not just something to keep shipyards open. That is critical. The UK’s long-term commitment to the Type 26, which is currently being constructed for the Royal Navy in Glasgow, was an important consideration for Australia in its decision-making process. The fact that we continue to invest in it showed our continued confidence in the Type 26, which we believe is the world’s most advanced, capable and globally deployable anti-submarine warfare frigate.
In conclusion—[Interruption.] I could go on, if Members would like. I hope that the House will join me in recognising the important role that the defence industry plays in helping us to meet our ambitions and commitments, ensuring that we continue to deliver cutting-edge, battle-winning capability for our armed forces for years to come.

Julian Lewis: As an immoveable Defence Committee commitment means that I have to leave this debate for a period, though I hope to catch Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye later on, I would not like the Minister to sit down without knowing how much we on both sides of this House appreciate that he has been prepared to speak out as strongly as he has in favour of an increase in the defence budget. I hope that he will continue to press the Opposition to operate on a bipartisan basis in this way, because if we want to invest to keep shipyards open that might otherwise close, surely the logic is that the defence budget must increase.

Tobias Ellwood: My right hon. Friend is very kind in his words. May I reciprocate by saying that he has done much work to keep this debate alive? The Defence Secretary is absolutely passionate about this. As I said earlier, we need to share this further, beyond defence colleagues and beyond those who naturally find this important and understand it or indeed who have constituencies that are connected with the armed forces. This is something on which we need to engage with the nation. We need to recognise that it is part of our DNA to be strong, to be firm and to be leaders in Europe and on the international stage itself. I hope that that message is being shared in NATO at the summit now.

Leo Docherty: rose—

Tobias Ellwood: I am desperate to finish, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Leo Docherty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Given that, at the NATO summit, President Trump has called on all NATO members to invest 4% of GDP on defence, does my right hon. Friend agree that 3% from the United Kingdom is the very least that we should be investing in our national security?

Tobias Ellwood: Before wandering too far down that road, let me say that this is just too important for us to play a guessing game and try to thump out numbers of GDP advancement. Other Departments will just turn around and say, “Well, I want a bit more of that for my Department as well.” We must make the case; we must spell out exactly what the money would be spent on, what savings would be made and what efficiencies we can provide inside defence itself. Therefore, whether the figure is 4%, 3% or 2.5%, the purpose of the defence modernisation programme is to give us the detail on what we need to do for our air, land and sea; what we need to do to upgrade in all phases of war; what we need to do in the new areas of complex weapons, cyber-security and protection of space for fear of hollowing out our conventional capability.
In conclusion, this Government have a responsibility to obtain the right capabilities for our armed forces. However, as a customer, we must ensure that this represents value for money for the taxpayer. Competition is at the heart of our approach. Our shipbuilding strategy is a pathfinder and exemplifies many aspects of our approach, set out in the Government’s policy framework, which includes an ambition to transform the procurement of naval ships; the importance of making the UK’s maritime industry more competitive; investment in the Royal Navy fleet; a commitment to exports; and a plan to boost innovation, skills, jobs and productivity across the UK.
We are rightly proud of all those who serve our country. We have a duty to look after them and protect them. That includes procuring the best possible equipment, which allows us to remain a tier 1 nation, leverage our industrial capacity and produce cutting-edge equipment for us and for us to export.

Wayne David: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Minister was adamant that there had been a British bid for the MARS tanker contract. That was not the case, and I wonder whether he would like to correct the record.

Lindsay Hoyle: Do you wish to speak, Minister?

Tobias Ellwood: Because of the mechanics of the Defence Committee, I, rather than the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), stepped forward to open this debate. However, defence procurement is his brief, and it would make more sense for him to give a comprehensive reply on this very subject as he is concluding this debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: The matter is now on the record for it to be picked up—[Interruption.] Hot potatoes!
I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Division, which was subject to a double majority vote under Standing Order No. 83Q, in respect of the Question relating to the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order. The Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 211. In respect of the same Question among those Members from qualifying constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 282 and the Noes were 201, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Stewart McDonald: After the Minister’s interesting and generous 40-minute speech, I will cut my remarks short. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Oh, don’t tempt me. I will perhaps not be as generous as the Minister, to allow colleagues, particularly those with constituency interests, to speak. [Interruption.] With the upcoming England game, I am happy to detain hon. Members, if that is really what they want me to do. In the spirit with which the shadow Secretary of State opened the debate, the phrase “It’s coming home” does not at all stick in my throat. In this debate, I think that we should stick to the phrase, “It ought to be coming home.”
This debate takes place on the day and against the backdrop of the Prime Minister being at the NATO summit in Europe. History has a strange habit of repeating itself; when the last female Prime Minister was at an important summit in Europe, her Back Benchers were concocting a plan to remove her as party leader and as Prime Minister. I can only assume that the current Prime Minister is hoping that history is a bit kinder to her as the summit progresses today. But, of course, it is shaping up to repeat itself, because this has all the hallmarks of Westminster again selling out shipbuilding across the United Kingdom.
The Government seem intent to ignore much of what the shadow Secretary of State has outlined and, I am sure, much that will be adumbrated by other colleagues as the afternoon progresses. The Government are ignoring the real value to the taxpayer, ignoring the craft and the skill of shipbuilders across the UK, and ignoring what is in our own economic, political and national security interests. Given that the Department has a black hole of up to £20 billion, I would have thought that this was something of which the Government wanted to take real cognisance.
I do not level the following accusation at either Minister on the Treasury Bench right now, but when the Government have manoeuvred for self-interest all week long—and it is only Wednesday—now would be a good time to switch around, do the right thing and confirm that the fleet support ships will be built here in the UK. The financial benefits have already been outlined by colleagues outwith this place. The GMB union estimates that it can create and secure up to 6,500 jobs, including almost 2,000 in shipbuilding directly, that it can generate almost the best part of £300 million a year for the UK Exchequer and, as has been mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, that it can provide a return of 36p for every pound that is spent.
I grew up in the town of Govan, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I know what it is like to grow up in a town that relies on shipbuilding and to see it go almost to its knees, as it did in the early 1990s. I am sure that Glasgow MPs and colleagues from other shipbuilding constituencies will be damned if this Government are going to do that again.

Stephen Kerr: Is not it fantastic that there is enough work to keep the Govan shipyards full until the mid-2030s?

Stewart McDonald: Oh, I am going to come to that. The hon. Gentleman leapt up, but sometimes  hon. Members’ interventions are best made from their seats; that might have been one of them.
On whether this is a civilian ship or a warship, my party is in agreement with the shadow Secretary of State. We think that the Government have the wrong definition and we do not believe that they are actually fulfilling their responsibilities as far as the Parker report is concerned. These ships are armed and, as has been mentioned, take part in counter-piracy and counter-narcotics missions.
I want to read a quote from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who is responsible for procurement. He said in a written answer on 27 April this year:
“The programme to deliver the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) Fleet Solid Support ships is in the Assessment Phase. We expect that the ships will be provided with a limited range of weapons and sensors for self-protection, most likely to include small arms, and close range guns such as Phalanx. The exact equipment provision has not yet been finalised but will remain consistent with the defensive measures provided to RFA vessels.”
On that definition, the Minister who has just spoken is getting it wrong.

Tobias Ellwood: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship to see the self-defence assets that are on board? That is allowed by law, given that civilians are working there. They are allowed to have a certain accommodation of capability, as he has just rolled out. That does not make such a vessel a royal naval warship or one that is doing any kinetic operations.

Stewart McDonald: The Minister is free to invite me. Indeed, I look forward to getting a suggested date and time.
I am not the only one who is picking a fight with the Government over this; I am joined by all the Opposition parties in the Chamber today, the shipbuilders who will be producing these ships when the order finally comes through and the trade union movement that supports them.

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Chris Stephens: rose—

Stewart McDonald: The Minister has spoken quite a bit. I do not like not giving way to a Minister, but I would rather give way to a Back Bencher.

Chris Stephens: I thank my hon. Friend. Is he aware of recent press releases from the Ministry of Defence in relation to the MARS contract that the Minister talked about earlier? One says:
“The tanker is expected in Falmouth next spring when she will start military customisation.”

Stewart McDonald: My hon. Friend makes an important point that I am sure he will expand on later. [Interruption.] The Minister is most unkind. I sat and listened to him for 40 minutes and here I am being heckled as though he had taken five minutes. In fact, I am trying to remove parts of my speech to allow other colleagues to get in.
I want to come to some of the broken promises that the Conservatives have made with regard to shipbuilding in Scotland. Let us cast our minds back four years, when they were desperate—desperate—to buy off Scottish  shipbuilding in the face of a potential vote for Scottish independence. They promised 14 Type 26 frigates to be built on the Clyde: a state-of-the-art, world-class frigate factory, which, amazingly, the previous Defence Secretary used to stand at the Dispatch Box and insist was there. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West was getting phone calls from journalists in Glasgow asking if they could go to see it. Indeed, I believe that a Labour Member—the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney)—actually took part in the design of the frigate factory. We were utterly sold out again by the Conservatives.
The current Chancellor, who at that time was the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told people in Scotland that staying the UK was necessary to secure the future of shipbuilding in Scotland, but that promise was slashed. The guarantee of 14 Type 26 frigates was cut to eight, but we were promised five Type 31e’s to make up for the shortfall in numbers. Shipbuilders in Scotland—and indeed, I suspect, across the UK after this debate finishes—will not be trusting the Tories any time soon.
Finally, I want to read out a quote from the assistant general secretary—

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stewart McDonald: No, because I have said I am going to allow other colleagues to get in.
The assistant general secretary of Unite, Mr Steve Turner, has said, and he is spot on:
“It would be a travesty if UK government ministers handed the economic windfall that building the new Fleet Solid Support ships brings to another country. The skills, knowledge and capability to design and build complex warships would be hollowed out and the clock turned back to the 1990s when the UK’s shipbuilding was on its knees. By 2020 25 per cent of spending on the UK’s defence equipment will be benefiting factories overseas rather than here in the UK. This is taxpayer money that can and should be spent here in the UK to the benefit of our economy. The government needs to back UK defence workers and our manufacturing industries by guaranteeing Royal Navy ships”.
If 25% of defence equipment spending being spent elsewhere around the world is this Government’s idea of a global Britain, then, frankly, count me out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will have to introduce a seven-minute limit on speeches. I call Kevin Foster.

Kevin Foster: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—it makes quite a change to be called early in a debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald).
Some people will be wondering, “Why is the MP for Torbay rushing to speak in a shipbuilding debate? Surely the south-west is just about tourists, fishing, farmers and a few other bits.” Well, I know that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) will be talking about the huge importance of the Devonport naval base. If we look at the figures from the House of Commons Library on employees in shipbuilding in 2016, we see that there are 12,000 in the  south-west—even more than in Scotland or the north-west, which we might traditionally associate this industry with.
It is wonderful to note the new-found enthusiasm of the leader of the Labour party for the defence industry in the UK. I will leave those comments there, because I would rather we had a more positive debate, but it is certainly a contrast with some of the views he has expressed over the last three decades.

Simon Hoare: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kevin Foster: I will not, because I am conscious that there is quite a queue of Members wishing to speak. While this is an Opposition day debate, there are many Members with significant constituency interests who would like to speak.
In terms of the investment, it is welcome to see the new carriers coming into the fleet and the new Dreadnought-class submarines already under construction, which will hopefully be refitted in Devonport in the years to come, when they have entered the main service of the fleet. It is good to hear about other investment projects. We are seeing our Royal Navy become more competent and capable, with even more of a global reach. It is welcome to see that we are back in the South China seas, looking seriously at the British national interest out in the Pacific region.
While I have some sympathy with one or two parts of the motion, which I will come to, we have to think coherently about what we are saying. If we keep saying that these contracts—contracts that are not internationally recognised as something that should be national only—should be UK-only, we start to go down the path of the nonsense arguments that have been used in the steel industry in the United States. Donald Trump has used a nonsense argument about national security to put tariffs on Canadian and European steel. Let us be quite candid: Canada and the UK are some of the strongest allies of the United States. We share the most sensitive intelligence with one another, so it is an absolute nonsense to suggest that there is a national security angle to who sells steel from this country to the United States. That is where I part company with some of the Labour party’s arguments.
The part of the motion on procurement criteria is perfectly reasonable, and I will come to that, but if we keep saying that certain contracts must be UK-only, we begin a trend of protectionism. We cannot on the one hand rightly say that Donald Trump is talking absolute nonsense about steel, but on the other adopt a policy like that ourselves, potentially against foreign—

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevin Foster: I will, but very briefly.

Kevan Jones: Could the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a single country in the world, including the United States, that would have procured these naval ships from overseas yards?

Kevin Foster: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Sadly for him, if he had waited until I got to a later part of my speech, he would have heard me talk about the Republic of Ireland, which is building naval ships at the Appledore shipyard in North Devon. He asked me to name one country in the world, and he  has got one: the Republic of Ireland. I do not think I will take another intervention if knowledge is so limited that even our closest neighbour is not known about.

Tobias Ellwood: I just want to make a technical point. One reason why we are in this situation is that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, as I mentioned, is made up of civilians. Most nations that have advanced naval capability have support vessels that are part of their naval fleet; it is for sovereign capability that those ships are built in that way. They do not have even the freedom to offer that elsewhere.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Minister for his intervention.
The part of the motion I have sympathy with is about ensuring that when we engage in procurement exercises the criteria take into account the wider benefits of using particular contractors. One of the things I am slightly concerned about is the idea that buying from the UK is something we are only going to do if we have a protectionist policy in place. As is shown by the example I have just been able to give of Babcock building ships for the Irish navy, our industry is perfectly capable of winning contracts in the international market. That is because of the quality of the teams, the quality of the product and the cutting-edge nature of some our technology. The recent Australian navy contract won by BAE, which has already been mentioned, will see the export of our knowledge and expertise—many small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK will get jobs and contracts out of that decision—and it is a sign of the quality we can offer.
It is almost doing down our industry if we stand up in the House and say to its potential international customers that the only reason we would want to buy from it is if we were required to do so, because that is simply not the case. Our industry has moved on hugely, and it is a cutting-edge and competitive one. It is disappointing that more Members have not got up and said that in this debate. I must say that Members on both sides of the House have implied there would be a massive cost to buying here in the UK, whereas we can actually win contracts overseas.
For me, it is clear that our industry can go out and compete properly for work, based on criteria that take into account the wider benefit of delivering a particular contract in a UK yard. I want to see these ships built in the UK and I want a yard to win that contract. I want us to be able to go out and say to our international competitors that that was done because our shipbuilding industry put in a good bid, at a good price, and could deliver exactly the right product and one that they would want as well. Let us be candid: if global Britain is about saying, “We want to sell everything to you, but there is no way we’re going to buy anything in return,” it will not be particularly successful.
In every trade deal we sign, we should rightly look to include protections against subsidy or state aid. In the same way that we would look to stop the dumping of steel via tariffs, we should make sure that a procurement contract deals with any nation wanting to subsidise it with a view to having an unfair competitive advantage. Again, fair criteria would deal with that.

Paul Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps heard of learning curves, which drive efficiency and productivity improvements, but that relies on a consistent  drumbeat of work in order to hone efficiencies. His prescription militates exactly against such efficiencies being achieved.

Kevin Foster: I completely and utterly disagree. We can have such criteria, but I am saying that telling everyone else in the world “You can buy from us, but we aren’t going to buy from you” is absolute nonsense.
The idea that our industry is unable to drive efficiencies, deliver savings and, on contracts, deliver good-quality products at the right price for customers who want to buy them is actually doing down the industry. We did not win the contract at Appledore because the Irish navy said it could buy only from shipyards located on the Irish sea; we won it because it was right, Babcock having put in an excellent bid for the contract. Sadly, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) could not himself name one country that would bid for such a contract—for a naval ship—abroad.
For me, it is absolutely right that we encourage people to put bids together. It is right that we have criteria—this is where I have sympathy with a lot of the Labour motion—that look to deliver products from companies based in the UK. However, I would say to Members that we cannot come to the Chamber one day and whine about the nonsense arguments about the steel industry in the United States, and then pop back here the next day and use almost the same arguments, in another context, about one of our own industries.
I believe that our shipbuilding industry will benefit from the fact that we have a big supply line order for the Navy, and that it will strongly benefit from long-term maintenance as well. I am the son of dockyard worker. My father did not build ships, but he spent 37 and a half years maintaining and repairing them. It is quite sad to hear people dismiss the after-work as something rather minor, because it is actually a massive part of a contract. The vast majority of the money spent on the Dreadnought class will be in the maintenance and refitting of the submarines over their whole lifetimes.
For me, this debate is welcome, and we agree with elements of the motion. There will now be some pretence that I have argued such ships should be built abroad. No, I have argued that we need to have a consistent policy as a nation, because if we are not consistent, we cannot expect others to be consistent when they are dealing with our industries.

John Spellar: I will now bring us back to the real world of the defence procurement industry. The Minister wrapped himself in knots over article 346, and it very much reminded me of Madeleine Albright’s response to Robin Cook when he told her during the events in Kosovo, “Our lawyers say I can’t do that.” “Change your lawyers,” she said, “and get better legal advice.” As I will come on to later, that is what every other country does.
We are not saying that we do not want to work in partnership with other countries; we do, and we want to do so effectively, and not just for shipbuilding, which obviously we are focusing on today. We have to look forward. I am pleased that the Minister announced an announcement on the air strategy next week. In particular, we are hoping for an announcement on the  future combat aircraft, which we hope will go ahead, and some indications of who we will be partnering with.
Many firms in Europe are concerned by attempts to exclude us from such developments, as we are already seeing with Galileo. It is a bit ironic, in the week of the Brexit crisis, that we are asking Ministers and the Ministry of Defence to be good Europeans—to behave like our European partners. However, the MOD seems to want to act like the three wise monkeys, keeping itself in blissful ignorance. It told the Defence Committee:
“The MoD does not hold information on how other countries apply EU Regulations for defence acquisition.”
Why the hell not? Why has it not asked those questions? Why would it not make those inquiries? It almost reminds me of the sign outside Balliol College during the student demonstrations of 1968: “Do not adjust your mind—reality is at fault.” The MOD does not even want to know the reality, in case it finds it uncomfortable.
France is a very good example. Let me make it clear that I regard France as an excellent defence partner, both militarily and in manufacturing. I congratulate the Minister for Defence Procurement on an excellent performance in front of a joint committee of our Defence Committee and that of the Assemblée Nationale. That is what we are talking about—co-operation and collaboration between our two defence industries.
Let us be very clear: the four auxiliary oilers were awarded with no competition, and furthermore the work was directed to the Saint-Nazaire yard, which was the yard that needed it. From my experience as a Minister, that is not uncommon in Europe, in defence and in many other areas, particularly transport. Not only will European countries decide that work goes to a company of their nationality, they will say which company it goes to.
My respected colleague, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, talked about the percentage of the economy that is spent on defence. I am sorry that he is not here; perhaps he has another commitment. He ought to understand that the economic multiplier effect—the taxes that are paid, and the money that is spent, by the people who work in the yards that will build the vessels—would increase national gross domestic product, and with it the amount that went to defence.

Bob Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, for giving way. Will he say quickly why we should not also support things such as Thales UK, Boeing UK and Leonardo in the UK? This is a way of doing it.

John Spellar: If they have locations in the UK and there is a fair share of the work, that is absolutely right, but let us look at shipyards. I have mentioned what happens in France. The Berlin-class support ships are built in Germany. The Vulcano-class tanker support ships are built in Italy. The Cantabria-class oilers are built in Spain, and of course the United States has an absolutely rigid “buy American” policy as well. That is the real world, not the fantasy world of neo-liberal economics.
It is poignant that, in the week of the National Audit Office report on the failure of Carillion, in particular through under-pricing contracts and the Government encouraging it to go for “cheapest is best”, we are still being urged to adopt “cheapest is best”. Even within that, we do not drive a hard bargain. We do not insist, in work in the UK, on compensation.
The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) talked about maintenance work for maritime patrol aircraft. Maritime patrol aircraft will be maintained by the RAF and/or by industry, or in collaboration. That is not the issue. The real issue is what actual work there will be in manufacturing. Of course, maintenance is important, but that has to be done anyway. I refer not just to our shipyards and our aircraft factories, but to the UK’s very successful defence supply chain, particularly in engineering, electronics and, with regard to shipbuilding, our steel industry, which has been so dismissed by Ministers in the past.
This is also about maintaining the necessary flow of work, partly for that supply chain but also for our yards, in particular Rosyth. Rosyth shipyard will have a gap between the completion of HMS Prince of Wales, the second aircraft carrier in 2019, and the expected refit of HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first aircraft carrier, in 2030. Work on ships could keep the shipyard operational in between those dates and would therefore be very important in maintaining flow of work. We know how important that concept is, because of what happened in Barrow. There was a break in the drumbeat in the manufacture and production of nuclear submarines. The workforce drifted away to other industries and it cost a lot of money to recreate it.
As I said at the start, I urge the Minister to look at how other countries operate; to drive out the Treasury dogma, which has been imposed on the health service, transport and defence, that the cheapest and short-term is best; to think long-term; to work with industry, the trade unions and the supply chain. Back British industry. Back British shipyards. Back British steel.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: If everybody wants to get in, speeches need to be shorter. It is up to you.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You will be pleased to hear that my speech is very short.
Today’s debate gives the Government a really simple and straightforward choice: they can show they are seriously committed to their promised renaissance in UK shipbuilding by ensuring that the contract for the new fleet solid support ships is tendered in the UK only, or they can refuse to accept our motion, proving that their commitment to a renaissance is nothing more than yet another in a long line of vacuous phrases from this Government.
I know the Government may argue the line that in their national shipbuilding strategy these ships are not warships and are therefore not safeguarded for UK construction, but in a written answer just this year the Minister for defence procurement said:
“We expect the ships will be provided with a limited range of weapons”.
He went on to explain weapons, such as small arms and close range guns. I am no arms expert, but that sounds to me like a ship that is equipped to defend itself from hostile attack. It is true, is it not, that under article 346 of the Lisbon treaty, our Government could, as other EU nations have, safeguard our own defence industries and tender these contracts in the UK.
I would stress to the Defence Secretary, if he was here, that if he is really in charge of his Department he could change that policy and set a new direction. Why can he not change this policy, adopted in the national shipbuilding strategy, so that ships such as these are safeguarded for UK construction? In short, it is a question of political will: whether he wants these ships and the associated economic benefits to impact here in the UK or abroad.
The arguments on the Labour Benches and among the public are clear. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) said, the GMB union commissioned polling showing that 74% of people want the fleet solid support ships to be built in the UK. That could create up to 7,000 jobs, nearly 2,000 of which would be in our shipyards. An estimated nearly 5,000 jobs could be secured in the wider supply chain and the return to the taxpayer could be nearly £300 million. It would also ensure that vital skills, which are dying out in some areas, are passed on for future generations. Many of my family members have those skills. I am proud to come from a family of shipbuilders. My dad was a welder. My grandad, Herbert Lewell, and my uncle, Alan Lewell, were both painters. My other uncle, Alan Richardson, was a plater and my other grandad, John Henry Richardson, was a sheet metal worker. It is safe to say that the Tyne has some of the best shipbuilders in our country.
We are grafters in the north-east, but years of Tory Governments saw the decline of our yards, culminating eventually in the closure of the iconic Swan Hunter’s—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside—where many of my family served their time. Not content with shutting down the pits, our other mainstay of employment, the Tory Government from 1979 to 1997 ripped the heart out of my community and damned children like me and others to years of watching their parents, wider family, friends and community struggle, ravaged by mass unemployment that created a vacuum of hope for generations.

Mary Glindon: My hon. Friend is making a really heartfelt speech. I remember the Save our Swans campaign, and as she has touched on, this was not just about unemployment. Those men who were able to get jobs had to go across the world and leave their families, and another way of decimating the community was removing people.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is spot on. My dad spent a lot of time away—so much so that once when he came home, I did not even recognise him.
In 1981, 26,000 people were employed in shipbuilding and ship repair in the north-east. Today, that figure stands at a mere 525. My dad and the lads he worked with went from building ships, to repairing them, to being undercut by unscrupulous employers who exploited those coming from other EU states. Now many of the  valuable skills that they could have passed on are dying out and fewer younger generations are looking to shipbuilding and ship repair as a career.
This Government have said that they want a strong shipbuilding industry, and that they want to inspire a new shipbuilding generation and transform today’s traditional shipbuilding regions into engines of economic growth. Today, they have an opportunity to put that rhetoric into action, delivering jobs and certainty for the future that will invigorate the communities in those regions. I just hope that they are listening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The formal time limit is what it is. If colleagues felt able to speak for only four minutes, rather than seven, everybody would comfortably get in.

Douglas Chapman: I will try to make my speech go at the drumbeat of a Croatian polka rather than a Morris dance, Mr Speaker.
Let me start with something really positive: the early-day motion that I lodged last month on the contracts for the ships that we are talking about today has received cross-party support. I also say at the outset that Rosyth really needs the support of all 13 of the Tory MPs from Scottish constituencies, none of whom are in their place at the moment—I am sure that they will read it in Hansard—to support Scottish jobs and Scottish shipbuilding. They really have a good selling job to do to their party colleagues, and Scotland expects.
I am also grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for asking a number of questions on the procurement process in a letter to the Defence Secretary on 8 May. These included really important points that had been raised by the trade unions on this issue. To give the trade unions their due, they have been exemplary in how they have conducted this campaign. The report that was commissioned, which was written by Francis Tusa, is a very good read indeed.
There is some concern about the timing of the award of the contracts, but I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will assure the House that there will be no further delay. I know that the workforce and the management at Babcock in Rosyth are good to go. That workforce have developed a reputation for dependability and bring huge contracts in on time and on budget, and what we need is a green light to get on with the job. The Minister referred earlier to our almost wanting to buy things that are cheap as chips. I remind the House, however, that the MARS tankers ran 18 months late. There is, then, a cost to procuring ships on that basis.
As the Minister knows, Rosyth dockyard is the only dry dock in the UK that can take the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. On the completion of HMS Prince of Wales in 2019, the yard will be rapidly drawn down and by 2021 will no longer have the capabilities it has today. The report published by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and commissioned by the Secretary of State makes the case for a strong, sustainable defence sector that adds to the overall prosperity of the nations of these islands. It is not just about Rosyth, however; a consortium bid, structured well enough, can work and  be shared to create a win-win situation for many yards across these islands and spread the prosperity we all want to see.
The Queen Elizabeth class carriers will need to be refitted perhaps as early as 2025. The work we are discussing today for the fleet auxiliary ships should be used to keep Rosyth operational from 2020 to 2030. Can the Minister tell us when he sums up where the carriers will be refitted if Rosyth does not exist come that time? I do not know if he has paid a visit to Rosyth yet, but following a Prime Minister’s Question Time, I wrote to the Prime Minister, on 25 May, inviting her to visit to see at first hand the great job our West Fife workforce were capable of. I am sad to say that I am still waiting for a response. Both the Minister and the Prime Minister have an open and hospitable invitation—please come and see us!
It is hard for SNP Members to have this kind of debate without referencing the 2014 independence referendum, as it helps to set the context around the trust, promises and guarantees given to the people of Scotland in advance of that result. To recap, the Better Together campaign promised that 13 ships would be built on the Clyde at a state-of-the-art, world-class frigate factory in Glasgow, but that commitment has been repeatedly scaled back and delayed. In fact, the factory never materialised at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, then the Defence Secretary, repeatedly told the people of Scotland that staying in the UK was necessary to secure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. The UK Government then slashed the guarantee from 13 Type 26 frigates to eight but promised five Type 31e frigates to make up the shortfall. The Type 31e programme has now been opened up for yards across the UK to bid for, meaning that the work is not guaranteed to come to Scotland at all. As far as I can see, there is no budget line in the MOD’s budget to pay for the Type 31e frigates. I see the Minister smiling, so there must be an element of truth in what I say.
In addition, there is no mention of the frigate factory in Glasgow any more. The workers on the Clyde will want to know why this UK Government are reneging on their promises. The Tories cannot be trusted on shipbuilding, with their record of broken promises in Scotland. At least the Scottish Government are supporting Scottish shipbuilding with a £30 million loan to help Ferguson Marine diversify its business on the Clyde. Where is that kind of support from the UK Government?
In conclusion, the Government have previous on shipbuilding, but the Minister has a chance to make up for the broken promises of the past. I ask him to work with the industry in Scotland and across these islands to deliver on these contracts and to convince those in the Treasury that it makes good long-term sense, and would be sustainable, to award contracts to our yards. We live in a global world, but today of all days it is time for these contracts, these ships and these jobs to come home.

John Woodcock: I will try to cut short my soaring rhetoric, Mr Speaker, and give you four succinct minutes.
I agreed with much of what the Minister said about the nature of the threat we face and the need for the UK to prepare for them, not just now and for the years ahead but for the decades ahead, and about the scale of the potential threat from Russia, as it rearms and seeks to spend £30 billion extra per year on defence. We do not know where China will be in 10 or 20 years, either, except that it will almost certainly deliver on its vision to become a super military power by 2050.
I agreed with all of that, but then, towards his conclusion, the Minister clearly stated that there was opposition between building these ships in the UK and economic efficiency, and he suggested that there was opposition between building them in the UK and maximising the Navy’s capabilities. That is just wrong. We need only look at the experience of Barrow shipyard and the submarine programme in the 1990s, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) referred to so accurately.
Back in 1990 the Vanguard class of submarines came to an end, and the then Conservative Government did not introduce the Astute class programme so that there could be a seamless run-through. The result of that was not only mass unemployment, although more than 10,000 people were made redundant, but all the social and economic costs which still scar the community now. It made the whole business of shipbuilding in the United Kingdom far less efficient, and it made us far less capable. Because of the delay and because of the skills that were lost to Australia and elsewhere, the first Astute-class submarine was £1 billion over budget. The overrun now affects the Dreadnought class to the extent that it is touch and go whether the new vessels will be in place to maintain the continuous at-sea deterrence which, next year, will have existed for 50 whole years.
It is clearly in both the nation’s economic interests and the interests of its capability that we maintain shipbuilding, so that if we have to greatly increase our naval capability because of the uncertainty posed by future expansive states, we have the necessary capability. The Minister suggested that it was in some way wrong to give contracts in order to retain work in shipyards, but that is exactly what is needed to maintain Britain’s capability to respond to uncertain threats in the future.

Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Woodcock: I will not, because of the need for us to wrap up.
That reason alone—apart from all the jobs that will be involved—is sufficient to place contracts in the UK, and that is what the Government ought to do.

Ruth Smeeth: I must begin by directing the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB, the trade union that represents thousands of workers in our shipbuilding industry.
It is slightly challenging to follow so many Members who have spoken with such authority. I do not want to repeat what has already been said, and I shall speak as briefly as possible so that everyone can enjoy the football this evening.
The shipbuilding sector is of vast economic and strategic importance to our country. It is a £2 billion industry that directly employs over 32,000 people, with a further 20,000 jobs in the supply chain. It is a sector that continues to provide well-paid, highly skilled jobs for British workers—jobs that are desperately needed. The industry’s dependence on the Royal Navy means that MOD procurement policies such as those that we are discussing today are critical to the success of British shipbuilding, as was recognised in the Government’s national shipbuilding strategy. However, I fear that the Government’s narrow interpretation of EU procurement rules means that they are needlessly limiting themselves in their efforts to support a major national industry.
Under article 346 of the Lisbon treaty, EU member states have nearly unlimited freedom in respect of defence procurement. It is a freedom of which many other EU nations have taken advantage in order to safeguard their own sovereign capabilities, as in the case of Germany’s Berlin-class support ship and Italy’s Vulcano-class logistic support vessel. Yet the UK has so far applied those protections only to the production of vessels that we define as “warships”. That approach lays bare the paradox at the heart of the Government’s attitude to our shipbuilding strategy. The very existence of a national shipbuilding plan suggests a recognition of the industry’s vital importance to both our economy and our national defence, but the long-term success of that industry is being impinged on by a refusal to do everything that could be done to support our national shipbuilding industry.
Nowhere is that demonstrated more clearly than in the Government’s decision to put the bid for the fleet solid support ships order out to international tender. We have already seen them begin to backtrack on their commitment to build three support ships, with the official tender for the project now stating
“a firm commitment for 2 ships and an option for a further 1 ship”
—so, apparently, two and a half. We should not be cost-cutting when it comes to the long-term capabilities of our Royal Navy, nor should we be putting an order of national significance out to tender abroad. The construction of those ships could give vital economic support to our national shipbuilding industry, and the £1 billion deal could provide long-term stability and investment in UK shipbuilding. As the shadow Secretary of State stated, GMB research shows that up to 6,700 jobs could be created or secured if the order were to go to a domestic shipbuilder, as well as a further 4,700 in the supply chain. That would build on BAE’s recent success in securing the SEA 5000 Australian programme.
As the House knows, I am adamant that due to the industry’s dependence on naval contracts, a steady drumbeat of orders is vital. Building these fleet solid support ships here in the UK would provide a real guarantee to British workers and show that the Government are serious about supporting British business.
I have spoken before in the Chamber about the importance of the wider defence family. Those who design and build these ships are as vital to our long-term national security as those who serve on them. If we were to lose those skills and that knowledge now, as we prepare for a new post-Brexit world, the damage could last for a generation.
We cannot afford to sit back and let the free market take its course while competitor countries recognise the value of using public procurement to support security-critical industries. We must not allow our skill base to erode or our communities to decline by failing to do everything we can to provide that steady drumbeat of orders that is so vital to our continued prosperity.
During the 1980s, the UK’s withdrawal from the defence export market and our failure to establish a solid base in commercial production saw 75,000 jobs disappear. The impact on our communities and on our domestic capacity was devastating, and the Minister, who has now left, should be ashamed that he compared it with the mining industry. We simply cannot allow this to happen again.
A national shipbuilding strategy is a great step forward, but it needs to be more than words—we need orders. Our Royal Navy is still the best in the world. Let us see to it that it holds on to its ability to rule the waves. We must protect our domestic shipbuilding and ensure that these orders, and the jobs they bring here, are coming home.

Ronnie Cowan: The 1980s will be ancient history for many Members, but the destruction of Clyde shipbuilding during that period remains a living, breathing part of political debate in the west of Scotland. I know that many Conservative Members will roll their eyes and think, “Oh, here we go: Thatcher and shipbuilding again.” I remind them that in October 1984, the male unemployment rate in the Greenock central area was 35%. The economic shock of Thatcher’s abandonment of shipbuilding left a deep wound that we are still trying to heal.
Since 1981, Inverclyde’s rate of depopulation was proportionately higher than that of any other local authority area in the United Kingdom, and it is projected to decline for at least two more decades. That is the UK Government’s shipbuilding legacy in Inverclyde. That is why decisions made in allocating shipbuilding contracts are so important—they can make or break communities.
The Defence Secretary needed only to visit Inverclyde to see the terrible cost of removing Government support for vital manufacturing industries, including defence shipbuilding. Many of my constituents are still angry about what happened. There is still an historical obligation to the area, which the UK Government have not fulfilled. In 1976, the UK built 134 vessels. By 2011, just four were produced by our shipyards. How different that figure might have been had the UK Government guided the industry towards a more sustainable future.
Thankfully, with the assistance of the Scottish Government, one shipbuilding yard remains in Inverclyde: Ferguson Marine. Earlier this year, Ferguson Marine bid as part of a consortium for work relating to the Type 31e frigates. Last week it successfully led a European consortium in a bid for EU funding to produce the world’s first hydrogen-powered ferry. It is not a company that is afraid to move with the times. The tendering process for the fleet solid support ships is another opportunity for Ferguson Marine to show that Clyde shipbuilding is the best in the world.
We know that the MOD goes some way towards agreeing with that assessment, as its recently published report stated that Scotland was renowned for building  “the world’s finest warships.” Yet despite that, the UK Government refuse to give those same shipyards a vote of confidence by making the FSS tendering process UK-only. Building in the UK benefits the UK more than building abroad. Building ships in the UK means that the taxpayers’ money of all the hard-working men and women of the United Kingdom is reinvested in protecting their jobs. And guess what? They then pay tax to the UK Government and spend their money in their local economy. The knock-on effect is that the prosperity of the entire area improves. Beyond that, shipbuilding companies with a longer order list can invest in the long-term future of their yards, and that was exactly what they did not do in the 1970s and 1980s.
It is the UK Government’s duty to invest in the UK shipbuilding industry and give it the confidence to take on apprentices and to invest in training its workforce. If we build these ships in another country, the employees’ tax is lost to us, as is the spend in the local economy and the opportunity for investment in the yards. UK yards can barely survive and are living from hand to mouth. They certainly cannot prosper, and ultimately they will fail. We must learn from the lessons of the 1970s and 1980s. The UK Government must not turn their back on the shipbuilding industry again, as they did in the ’70s to the coalminers and the steelworkers.
In 2012, the UK Government issued the contract for the MARS tankers to a South Korean company, Daewoo. UK taxpayers were subsidising Korean shipyards. Why risk making that mistake again? I have heard it argued that if we allow countries across the globe to bid for UK work, UK shipbuilders will be able to bid for work across the globe. Well, not if they don’t exist they won’t, not if their workforce don’t possess the necessary skillsets they won’t, and not unless we have first nurtured a strong, vibrant shipbuilding sector in the UK they won’t.
The UK Government are desperately trying to find an excuse to justify the fleet solid support ships contract not involving a UK-only tendering process. It is almost as if they are trying to convince the country that they can do trade deals abroad, particularly with countries outside the EU27. Surely a UK Government who genuinely cared about domestic shipbuilding would be trying to find an excuse to give UK yards the best possible chance of success, not laying obstacles in their way and threatening a successful outcome. The excuse we have heard regurgitated over and over is that the FSS should not be seen as warships and that the tendering process should therefore be opened up to international competition. This is despite the fact that these vessels will be armed and that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary provides operational support for counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations.
Other European states have procured internally for similar auxiliary vessels. In some instances, they did not open up their tendering process to the international market. The proposed FSS builds do not need to be put out to tender under EU rules or any other rules, yet the UK Government shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do. Shipyard workers in my constituency have a right to feel angry and to be frustrated by the UK Government’s complacent attitude. I urge the Minister to think again and to give as much support as possible  to shipyards such as Ferguson Marine in my constituency. They are ready, willing and able. Their workforce will pay their tax and spend money in the community, and their senior management team will be able to invest for the long term in the future of shipbuilding on the lower Clyde. This and only this will guarantee a growing and stable workforce for generations to come.

Kevan Jones: I welcome this debate and declare two interests: first, as a member of the GMB union; and, secondly, as the chair of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair. This is a great opportunity to highlight a great industry encompassing not only shipbuilding, but maritime engineering, ship repair, design and combat systems. It is also an opportunity to celebrate the skills of the workforce in this sector.
However, the industry is heavily reliant on the direction of Government policy. The Government issued their shipbuilding strategy earlier this year and, unlike the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), I have actually read it in detail. The all-party group is conducting an inquiry into it at the moment. I believe that it is a missed opportunity, because it is turning the clock back to what we had in the 1980s—more competition between the yards in the UK. The Government withdrew from shipbuilding in the 1980s, but the Rand corporation found in 2005 that, rather than driving better value for taxpayers’ money, that policy drove costs up. Francis Tusa, who gave evidence to our inquiry, made it clear that, looking as far back as 1945, we can see that striving for competition in the shipbuilding industry has led to increased costs and delays.
Unlike other industries, the shipbuilding industry needs a flow-through of work. A number of Members have already highlighted the importance of the regular drumbeat of work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) gave a classic example of what happens when we get it wrong. When the last Tory Government stopped building submarines, they took away the ability for the industry to do that any more. If we do that again in other sectors, we will lose the flow-through of work there as well. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) mentioned Appledore, but Appledore has no work coming through, so he should be arguing vociferously for the fleet solid support ships to be built here, because there is a chance that Appledore would get some of that work.
To invest in the sector, companies need stability, and the only way to get stability is to have work coming through. We cannot turn the supply of complex skills needed to build complex warships on and off like a tap, and we have seen that in Barrow. People also forget that skilled people and apprentices go and work in other sectors of the economy, so investment in this sector means investment in other sectors as well. This is also about the supply chain, because small and medium-sized companies need confidence to invest. Overall, this is about sovereign capability and whether we want this country to be able build these ships, and I think that we should.
Furthermore, we should not just concentrate on hulls. The through-life support of these ships and many others is of vital importance not just for jobs, but for technology.  If we look at the weapons systems that might go on the FSS ships and other combat ships, they will be exportable around the world. The design is exportable. BAE Systems has had great success recently with the Type 26 in Australia, and the design is a world beater. We can only achieve that, however, if we keep the designers in this country, and we can do that by ensuring a flow of work. However, where are those ships being built? They are being built, quite rightly, in Australia due to the Australian Government’s commitment to having a sovereign capability to build such ships. If we want to retain skills in this country, we need to be able to do that as well.
It is a no-brainer that FSS ships should be put into UK shipyards, because that would help to keep work flowing through and provide stability. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) made a good point about Rosyth, because it is a world-class facility thanks both to the skilled workforce and the investment that went in. However, having put all that together, what other country in the world would then rip it apart and sell off the cranes? No one would, and that is the sort of vandalism that we are likely to face.
The arguments for why the new ships should not be built here do not hold a great deal of water. The Minister who opened the debate was completely wrong about the MARS contract, and I will read from an article in Defense News from August 2016:
“The bidding proceedings saw no British contractors enter the final stage of the tanker competition, leaving the door open for the huge South Korean shipyard to outbid rivals for the work.”
So—[Interruption.] The Minister says “final” from a sedentary position. Yes, I know that, because I have spoken to some of them, and they were told by MOD officials not to bid. There is an opportunity here not only to ensure that the new ships, which we need for our defence, are procured from this country, but to support and see a renaissance in UK shipbuilding, ship repair and technology. I do not know why the Government do not want to do that. Future Government policy needs to involve more co-operation with and support for the sector, which will not only have benefits for our sovereign capability, but provide a major boost to our economy, which will certainly be needed in the next few years post-Brexit.

Chris Stephens: I will try my best to keep my remarks to four minutes, Mr Speaker. First, may I welcome the trade union representatives from the Clyde shipyards? Such is their passion for the industry that they have come down to London today to hear this debate.
The debate so far can be summed up by paraphrasing that great conservative icon Lord Vader because, “We want these ships, not excuses.” All we have heard from Government Members has been excuses, because—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) has ever watched the films, he would know that Lord Vader is far from a socialist.
What we have heard today is exactly what we heard at Defence questions on Monday, when Opposition Members were told that the reason why fleet support ships are going to international competition is that it is in the national shipbuilding strategy. Government Back Benchers have been told that the Government will make sure the weaponry for these ships will be UK-based.
The national shipbuilding strategy is based on Sir John Parker’s report, which says:
“There is the opportunity with the Fleet Solid Support ships for UK firms to make…bids, and hopefully secure the contract, thus contributing further regional economic benefits in the UK.”
The Parker report does not recommend international competition for the fleet support ships, so it is wrong for Ministers to say that the national shipbuilding strategy accepted all the recommendations of the Parker report. Frankly, we find ourselves in a position where the Government are saying there should be modular build for small frigates but not for fleet support ships, which is ludicrous.
The Government cannot have it both ways. I asked a written question on the range of the weaponry, sensors, arms and close-range guns, such as the Phalanx, and the answer, published on 27 April, has been mentioned. The Phalanx is a Gatling gun designed to shoot down fast anti-ship missiles, aircraft and fast attack craft. It is fitted only to high-value ships that are vital to naval operations, so it is ludicrous to say that these ships have limited weaponry.
The MARS vessels are fitted with cannons, mini-guns, machine guns and anti-submarine and anti-surface-warfare helicopters, yet we have been told by Ministers that they are not warships. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. If it looks like a warship and acts like a warship, it is a warship.
Opening up shipbuilding contracts for international competition only makes sense if other countries are doing the same, so which other countries are putting auxiliary ships up for international competition? Is France, Germany, Italy, Spain or the United States of America doing so? The answer is no. No one treats auxiliary ships as a commercial commodity to be bought wherever, because the reality is that other countries see them as vital ships both for military and industrial reasons.
I support the Opposition motion, and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) made important points about the economic benefits of these fleet support ships being built in the United Kingdom. It will keep people in work, and it will bring tax, national insurance and vital revenue into the country. Again, if it looks like a warship and acts like a warship, it is a warship, and it should be block built in this country.

Guto Bebb: Phalanx is a defensive weapon.

Chris Stephens: Again, the Minister is shouting from a sedentary position. The MOD website is full of the vital military components used by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which is why these ships should be built in the United Kingdom in a modular way—the same way as the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier.

Luke Pollard: I not only declare an interest but, as the MP for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, proudly proclaim that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on shipbuilding and ship repair. I am very proud to be a GMB and Unite member. I add my name to the list of Members who have called today for the new Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships to be built in Britain. Build them here. Do not ship those jobs abroad.
This is not the first time we have had this debate. Members will recall that I led a debate in Westminster Hall on the national shipbuilding strategy in January, when I offered scrutiny and suggestions to make the strategy more robust and valuable to industry, to the Government and to our armed forces. I asked why, in an uncertain world, we are not spending more on defence, and I raised my concern about the damage caused to Plymouth and Devonport and to those who work for our Royal Navy both in and out of uniform by the constant speculation about the future of amphibious capabilities like Plymouth’s Royal Marines, HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. I also called for the RFA fleet solid support ships to be built in Britain.
Ministers will know that they have my support in calling for more money for defence from the Treasury and especially in using that money to baseport the new Type 26 frigates in Devonport, to save the amphibious ships and to strengthen our Royal Navy. Ministers will also know that I am a critical friend of theirs, and on procuring the new RFA ships abroad, they are getting it wrong and I am do not mind telling them. We need three RFA ships, not two. Cutting that order is simply not good enough. At 40,000 tonnes each, the combined order would be the same size as the aircraft carrier order, sustaining jobs right across the country.
My arguments are the same today as they were in January. We risk sleepwalking into major contracts being given to those abroad. No other major NATO power shifts supply ship work abroad. No other major NATO power would be so cavalier with its sovereign defence capabilities. No other NATO power would risk the skilled jobs of its defence industry in the way that is being done here. I believe contracts to build ships for the Royal Navy and RFA should be onshored. These ships should be homegrown, British-designed and British-made, using British steel and British technologies, and preserving Britain’s sovereign defence capabilities to design, build, equip and repair complex and important ships for our own use and for export. I favour a restricted tender for these ships, as I did back in January. They will be carrying arms, munitions and supplies, so only UK shipyards should build them. I also believe that history will be unkind on those MPs who offshore our defence work.
Let us not forget that when the Royal Navy is on the frontline, in contested waters, off the coast of hostile powers, the RFA is there with it. Often overlooked, these ships form a vital part of the Royal Navy’s ability to operate at sea, and they lead humanitarian, counter-piracy and counter-narcotics operations in and of themselves. RFAs are forward deployed, so they are already in the firing line. Let us not forget that the Government would have the support of Members on both sides of the House if they followed the recommendation and applied a restricted tender.
I know that the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) is now otherwise engaged in his role in the Cabinet and so cannot be here to talk about the Appledore shipyard, but it has been mentioned. Once the superb work it is doing on the Irish offshore patrol vessel is complete, the yard will have no more work. This little shipyard is first-class. It has the opportunity and the skills to build Type 31e modules or modules for  the new RFAs, but if it does not get that order, its future looks bleak. I have met the workers from this yard and let me say to the Minister that they are ready, willing and able to deliver modules for the new RFA build. Give them that chance. Back British jobs and build them here.

Paul Sweeney: I shall do my best to keep my remarks brief, Mr Speaker, although this is a subject close to my heart. I have grown up around the shipbuilding industry my entire life, and I had the privilege of working in it as a new graduate in 2010-11 and through to 2016. Through that time, I have learned the bitter lessons of failed and deeply flawed MOD procurement practices. Through the 1990s, my dad had to travel around the country following shipbuilding orders, as Type 23 frigate orders were drip-fed and we were usually in a race to the bottom with the Irish shipbuilders and Swan Hunter to build them. That was a recipe for disinvestment and unemployment, and that was the harsh lesson learned. That is why the Labour Government turned away from the policy after 1997 and promoted a defence industrial strategy, which was well regarded in all parts of the House. That was followed up by a terms of business agreement that would have guaranteed a stable pipeline of work, with one ship built every 12 months in a six-year design cycle for complex warships. That was extinguished in 2014 by the MOD, in pursuit of an utterly wrongheaded policy on shipbuilding procurement.
Let me make it clear: the capacity to award this contract to a British shipyard is entirely at the MOD’s discretion, under the terms of article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Indeed, it is common practice to have done this; France, Germany, Italy, Spain and US do it. Most recently, Canada has pursued a similar policy with its national shipbuilding strategy. Its big ship construction will be focused on Vancouver and complex warship construction will be focused on Halifax, with a new purpose-built frigate factory there. Sounds familiar, does it not? Only the Canadians have actually achieved it and we have not.
The Govan shipyard is now the mainstay of British shipbuilding capacity, with the largest steelwork capacity in the UK and by a considerable margin. It is represented by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and I had the privilege of working in it for several years. The yard is also the only one capable of building complex warships in the UK—to date. That shipyard exists today only because it was saved in 1999 by a UK Labour Government who made it clear that they would save it by providing a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, the Wave class, and then another, the Bay class, to that yard. That enabled it to be match fit to build the Type 45 destroyers, the aircraft carriers and, subsequently, as we see now, the River class ships and the new Type 26 frigates. That yard exists today only because that Government took a conscious decision to ensure capacity was maintained at those shipyards.
Today, we see a new crunch point emerging. The current Royal Navy shipbuilding capacity plan for 2020 to 2040 shows a large UK ship-construction gap, primarily focused on Rosyth, which will have a 15-year gap in work between the completion of the HMS Prince of Wales and the first refit of the Queen Elizabeth or,  indeed, the build for the new future amphibious capability. It is the only facility in the UK that is currently capable of building large-beam vessels wider than 20 metres. The new FSS vessels are 29.5 metres and the new future amphibious vessels will be wider than 20 metres, so to ensure that the pipeline of capability is maintained in the UK, we must build the FSS in the UK. To ensure that we have our future amphibious capability—as the Minister conceded, the amphibious capabilities are regarded as sovereign shipbuilding capabilities—we must secure that pipeline of work to enable future amphibious-vessel construction.
Let us be clear about the economic benefits, which the Minister dusted over somewhat in his rather flimsy analysis. According to the Royal United Services Institute, naval shipbuilding work offers a return of 36p in the pound. Some £285 million would be returned to the Exchequer, but that is just a quarter of the overall industrial and economic benefit to the UK. A recent Institute for Public Policy Research report, which took into account welfare savings and greater GDP growth, found that naval shipbuilding activity in the UK offered a return of 40% to the Treasury. That must be taken into account when we consider the awarding of public procurement contracts. Some 70% of shipbuilding contracts are derived from the supply chain, which was worth £2.8 billion in 2015. That is a huge industrial benefit to the UK.
Overseas shipyards like Daewoo in South Korea are not bidding out of altruism; they are aggressively pursuing state-backed support efforts to pump-prime their own industrial base. Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering in South Korea invested $6 billion in 2017. Sir John Parker’s report, which the Minister lauded, said:
“Overseas build brings its own challenges including potential denial of opportunities for the UK supply chain, higher costs of overseas supervision and potential foreign exchange risks”—
as we saw in the recent RFA build in Korea. The report went on:
“Nor does the foreign build of ships make the direct prosperity contribution to the UK economy that an onshore build would achieve.”
If the Ministry of Defence is to stand by its convictions and its ideological position on this issue, I urge it to demonstrate the economic and social impact of domestic production versus offshore production, instead of the flimsy assertions that Government Members have made today, which have been utterly at odds with the truth.
If the Government define a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship as not a complex warship in respect of being fitted with armaments, do they class the River class batch 2 as complex warships? The proposed FSS ships will contain far more armaments than the River class patrol ships—[Interruption.] Yes, so are the patrol ships, so why do the Government define them as sovereign build but not the FSS? Their logic does not stack up; it is based on flawed analysis. We must have a virtuous cycle of investment, not a vicious cycle of disinvestment. The harsh lessons of the 1990s were learned: stop throwing away 20 years of coherent and proper defence procurement planning in this ridiculous pursuit of an ideological vanity that is going to utterly fail our shipbuilding industry.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: The World cup semi-final starts in less than half an hour, so I shall make sure that my comments are uncharacteristically brief.
I thank all Members who spoke today; I apologise for not referring to them individually. I give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who made the case for why greater Government intervention is necessary not only for defence manufacturing in the UK, but, in a broader sense, for manufacturing as a whole.
Manufacturing accounts for 10% of output, 44% of exports and 70% of business investment in research and development. Output per hour is £4 higher in manufacturing than the average for all sectors, and the average annual earnings of somebody who works in manufacturing are nearly £4,000 higher than average earnings from across the whole economy. Over the past 35 years, though, the UK has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs, which is 53% of all manufacturing jobs. Compared with 66% in 1991, some 81% of all jobs in the UK are now in service sectors, and only 8% of employment is in manufacturing.
The industries that, as we have heard, provided our parents and grandparents with employment are no longer an option for our children and grandchildren. There are many reasons for this shift, including Thatcher’s big bang deregulation of 1986 and the movement of production overseas in search of cheap labour. However, as time goes on the longer-term costs of this shift have become increasingly apparent, especially in three key areas. First, there is the loss of jobs and the rise of lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs. Young people growing up now are more likely to find work in services such as retail, hospitality and other low-skill, low-wage industries that often have poor terms and conditions.
The second key area is regional imbalance between areas devastated by the loss of industries and key service industry hubs such as London and the south-east. The shift to a largely service economy has not only impacted people on an individual level, but has profoundly affected entire communities. Industries that were once the sole employer and engines of local economic growth have disappeared, tearing the heart out of communities.
Let us look at Rossendale in Lancashire for example. In 1984, 58% of employees worked in textile manufacturing, but now that industry has almost completely disappeared in that area. A more recent example is Redcar, where steel runs through the veins of local people. The closure of the steelworks there has meant that thousands have lost their jobs. It is not enough to let industries fall by the wayside and simply rely on the financial sector to provide growth and then redistribute it to other areas of the country.
The third area that our industrial strategy must address is our deteriorating balance of payments. Our current account deficit currently stands at almost £18 billion, or 3.4% of GDP, and we import 41% of our manufacturing inputs. Research suggests that a rise of 10% in goods exported, and a 10% decrease in goods imported, would contribute £45 billion to the UK economy. It has been estimated that a £20 billion increase in domestic production would directly create between 100,000 and 200,000 high-quality jobs. What could the Government be doing to support British manufacturing and to encourage the  building of products here in Britain? A key policy lever for supporting British industry is obviously infrastructure investment. Upgrading the nation’s infrastructure—

Kevan Jones: This is all very interesting, but when is my hon. Friend going to reply to this debate? Some very serious points have been raised about defence issues, which are very relevant to defence workers across this country. I am sorry, but this is simply not answering them.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution, but it has somewhat delayed my speech and stands in the way of the World cup semi-final. I am coming to those points.
What should the Government be doing to support British manufacturing? As I have said, infrastructure is a key tool in driving investment upwards. Upgrading the nation’s infrastructure in projects such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which the Government shelved recently, would have created more than more than 2,300 jobs in Swansea and paved the way for the creation of a new domestic industry with substantial export potential. Of course, the Government must ensure that they negotiate the best deal possible, but they must also, on projects such as this, start seeing beyond the short-term basic cost calculations and realise the wider benefits of infrastructure projects such as Swansea.
The most obvious start, so obvious in fact that it is shining like a Belisha beacon, would be using the enormous power of Government procurement to support British industry. The public sector currently spends more than £200 billion every year in the private sector, but sadly this Government have failed effectively to use procurement as an economic lever for supporting manufacturing. There are many examples of this, not least the failure to support British steel. It was revealed last year that the renovation of Big Ben clock tower is using steel from Germany, Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was customary in a wind-up to reply to the debate. I am sorry, but Big Ben has not been mentioned this afternoon. The many defence workers who lobbied Parliament yesterday on this contract expect us to respond to this debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is part of it, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is leading on to the debate that we have had.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I am leading on to that issue. It is a debate not only about the ships in question, but about wider manufacturing procurement strategy.
Given the severity of the crisis facing British steel, this is simply shocking. The Government need to take a long-term approach to procurement, appreciating the wider economic and societal benefits of their decisions, rather than simply driving down the upfront costs. The Minister said that this is what the shipbuilding strategy states, but what I have read so far in the strategy is extremely ambiguous, and there is no detail as to how these wider socio-economic benefits are measured or quantified. Perhaps the Minister can respond to that point in his summing up. It would also be helpful to have confirmation that reports that a deal worth £2.5 billion  in relation to the AWACS—airborne warning and control system—contract has been awarded to Boeing with no UK content.
Our motion recognises the wider socioeconomic benefits of procuring wisely. We have sought to place the fleet solid support ship order with domestic shipyards, creating or securing 6,500 jobs, including 1,805 shipyard jobs, which are highly skilled and 45% better paid than the average for all jobs. It would also mean that £285 million of the estimated cost of the order could be returned to the Exchequer through taxes. Many people across Britain clearly see it as right, moral and economically sound to take this course of action. The Government have a duty to use their enormous spending power to support British industry and its workers. Tonight, football’s coming home; we need a commitment from the Government that the same will happen to British manufacturing.

Guto Bebb: It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate. I think that we have had 12 passionate speeches on this matter. [Interruption.] I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).
Although we all agree about the importance of the future of our shipbuilding sector, there is clearly a differential between my views and those of the Ministry of Defence, and the views of many Opposition Members. However, I am willing to recognise completely openly the commitment of those who have spoken in this debate to our defence sector, the defence industry and jobs within that industry.
Before I go on to my detailed notes, I want quickly to say two things. I have been asked to be short in my response because of a football match that is going on this evening—although, as a Welshman, I am quite happy to miss kick-off.

Lindsay Hoyle: I assure the Minister that the rest of us are not—come on!

Guto Bebb: I just want to place on the record a clarification of the comments made by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). He was correct in saying that UK companies were involved in the MARS tanker competition and procurement process, but Opposition Members are also correct in saying that there was no British company involved in a final bid. I hope that that clarifies the point of order made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).
I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State has brought this debate forward. The comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) were also very interesting, and there is no doubt that the team from Glasgow have very much argued the case for their city on this issue. I also welcome the speeches made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who made an important speech highlighting the fact that we have to understand the context in which these decisions are being made.
The truth of the matter is that we did recommend a shipbuilding strategy and we commissioned a report from Sir John Parker. We have accepted all the recommendations of that report, and it is important to highlight that we have done that in full. The crux of this issue and of this debate may come down to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). I thank him for his kind words. He said quite clearly that he had no problem whatever in companies based in the United Kingdom that are not owned or held in the United Kingdom competing for these contracts. That goes to the crux of some concerns that Government Members have about this motion, because it says very clearly that that contract should be offered only to “UK-only competition”. There is no definition of what that means, so the right hon. Member for Warley was probably discontented with the Opposition motion.
It is very clear that the Government are fully committed to supporting our defence sector. The shipbuilding strategy was not developed in order to avoid our support for the shipbuilding sector. The whole point was to ensure that we did support, in a coherent manner, a shipbuilding sector that would be competitive on an international basis, that would be able to retain the skills about which hon. Members have spoken so passionately, and that would allow the qualities of our shipbuilding sector to be understood and appreciated on a worldwide basis.
The Australian Government’s order of the Type 26 frigates in the SEA 5000 competition is an acknowledgment of the design skills that we have on the Clyde. It is also an acknowledgment of the confidence that the United Kingdom has in saying very clearly that we want to compete on an international basis and to offer our products on an international basis, and that we want to do so with a degree of confidence. We do not believe that the way forward for our shipbuilding sector is simply to say that every single vessel has to be built in the United Kingdom, because we are more ambitious for our shipyards. We want to see our shipyards winning contracts on an international basis.
I want to correct something. When I first stood at this Dispatch Box as a Defence Minister, I was told by the right hon. Member for North Durham that we had not sold a warship design in 40 years, so what made me think that we would start now? Well, we have. That is an indication of the fact that our strategy is working. It is working because we have confidence in our shipbuilding sector.

Kevan Jones: The Minister is being economical with his quote, because it was not about design—it was about the export of a vessel, which we have not done since 1960. Does he envisage a day when we will be building French, German and Italian warships in UK yards?

Guto Bebb: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay: we won the contest to build OPVs for the Irish navy. Again, that seems to be ignored. I find it very odd that Members who claim to speak up for shipyard workers throughout the United Kingdom seem to dismiss our success in ensuring that we had that contract delivered for the Irish navy.

Paul Sweeney: rose—

Guto Bebb: I need to make some progress because I must cover some of the points that were touched on.
From a defence perspective, we are trying to put a coherent plan in place to ensure that we have a competitive UK defence industry that can compete with the best. The way to do that is not to be scared of competition but to embrace competition. We have a shipbuilding strategy that says very clearly that we will understand the need for a national sovereign capability when it comes to building our warships. We need to make sure that we can measure our shipbuilding industry against the best in the world. The way to do that is not to go down the route of a protectionist “Britain first” policy but to invest in the capability that we have in our shipyards. That is why we invested £6.3 billion in Rosyth when we saw the fantastic build quality in the completion of the Queen Elizabeth class. That is why we are investing £3.7 billion in the first three Type 26’s in Glasgow. That is why we are showing a degree of confidence in our shipbuilding sector that Opposition Members need to share.

John Spellar: In a throwaway line, the Minister just made a disparaging comment about putting Britain first. What is wrong with putting Britain first?

Guto Bebb: The key thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, is that when Opposition Members talk about threats to the south Wales steel industry as a result of the “America first” policy, they are quite happy to attack Donald Trump for his protectionist attitude. The same thing can apply to this debate in spades, I am afraid. Competition and the ability to compete internationally are based not on protectionism but on the ability to be open in the way that we deal with this issue.

Ruth Smeeth: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Stephens: rose—

Paul Sweeney: rose—

Guto Bebb: No, I will not give way any further at this point.
The key thing that Opposition Members need to be aware of is that in addition to developing a shipbuilding strategy, we are ensuring that we are looking at the future of our combat air. That shows that this Government are taking a coherent approach across the board. We recognise fully in the Ministry of Defence the importance of defence in terms of the contribution that it can make to the prosperity of the United Kingdom. I welcome the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) in his report on the prosperity agenda, which has been welcomed by Members in all parts of the House. This Government and this Ministry of Defence intend to make sure that the lessons and the ideas put forward in that report get full consideration.
Many Opposition Members have rightly argued that in our procurement processes we should be thinking very carefully as to the means by which we can ensure a contribution to the economic wellbeing not only of the United Kingdom but of localities within the United Kingdom.

Stewart McDonald: One of the ways that other NATO countries do that is by the use of multi-year defence agreements. Why do this Government not look at that seriously?

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which has been a significant part of the discussion and is certainly being looked at closely in terms of the modernising defence programme. I welcome that sensible contribution.

Paul Sweeney: Will the Minister give way?

Guto Bebb: I am sorry, but I have to make some progress.
What we are highlighting is that across the Chamber we want to see a successful British shipbuilding sector, and we categorically want to see the conclusion of Sir John Parker’s report implemented. He said clearly in recommendation 21 that he wanted to see the opportunity for British shipyards to compete for the fleet solid support ships contract. That is categorically the position of the Ministry of Defence. We want to see a competitive bid from British shipyards. It can be a competitive single bid or a block build option, but we want to see that bid forthcoming. We want that bid to win because that bid is the best, the most cost-effective, the one that offers value to the taxpayer and the one that shows that the confidence we have in our shipbuilding sector is justified and will be maintained.

Wayne David: Will the Minister give way?

Guto Bebb: I will, as a final point of courtesy, allow my fellow Welshman to intervene.

Wayne David: I thank my fellow Welshman for giving way. Does he think it is fair that we could be in a situation with the FSS ships where British companies will be competing with heavily subsidised companies from abroad? Is that a level playing field?

Guto Bebb: No, of course it is not, which is why every single tenderer in this process will be subject to the same procurement rules and the same European rules that exist at this point in time, to ensure that we have a level playing field. The hon. Gentleman should understand the importance of ensuring that we have a level playing field. The way to ensure such a level playing field is not to insist on only UK companies being able to bid for what is not a warship.
The strategy has been adopted in full and was consulted on widely. The Ministry of Defence has decided that we have to adopt the strategy and implement it, and we are confident that we will see the success of this strategy and, more importantly, a very successful future for our shipbuilding sector. I look forward to bids coming in for the fleet solid support ships from British yards with the confidence that seems to be lacking from Opposition Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the important contribution of the defence industry to the UK; calls on the Government to support  the UK defence industry by taking into account the economic and employment benefits to the UK when awarding contracts and to publish a full, overarching defence industrial strategy; and further calls on the Government to make the competition for the Fleet Solid Support ships contract a UK-only competition to maximise the return on that contract.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Business Rate Supplements Functions) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.

Pensions

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Master Trusts) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 18 June, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - HOME EDUCATION: DRAFT GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION

Alan Whitehead: I rise to present the petition of Polly Smith and 25 of my constituents.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Southampton Test Constituency,
Declare that the “Home Education - Call for Evidence and revised DfE guidance” has been written following significant consultation with local authorities and no consultation whatsoever with the home education community; further that the consultation is consequently for little more than show as an intention to implement the content has already been stated: further that it seeks to encourage local authorities to breach the ECHR Article 8 and the GDPR; and further that the report provides no accessible means for a parent to address ultra vires behaviour by their local authority, where many of those authorities already act routinely in an ultra vires manner.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to withdraw the draft guidance and the consultation, until it has put in place an accessible and workable complaints procedure and further has consulted with home educating parents, as it has with Local Authorities, what the contents should include.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002203]

Fishing Industry:  Visas for Non-EEA Citizens

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Alistair Carmichael: I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Minister in her place. I have no doubt that there are other places Members may wish to be for the next half hour, but this is an important issue that matters enormously to my constituents and those of other Members and is deserving of our attention.
I should thank the Minister for her previous engagement in meetings and debates about this issue. I understand the political difficulties she finds herself in, but it has been apparent in recent weeks and months that interest in this issue is much wider than just those who represent fishing communities. It is certainly a cross-party issue. I have been notified by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), a Scottish nationalist, that he wished to be here this evening, but is not able to be so. I see in the Chamber from the Conservative party, the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and other Members who have an interest in this issue. There is a broad sense of agreement underpinning this matter, because the issues are highly distinctive to our fishing communities.
The root cause of the issues we are considering have as much to do with the recent history of the management of the fishing industry as with the skills shortages with which we currently have to deal. Historically, fishing boats have recruited labour—the deck hands—from their own home ports, such as coastal and island communities, but rarely from much further beyond. In recent years, although that situation has changed, the labour market has become much more competitive. Young men considering a career in fishing these days may also consider and find a very well paid career in the oil and gas industry, for example, in Shetland or in the north-east of Scotland. Renewable energy is now a source of employment, and there is also of course the merchant navy.
It has to be said that the industry is not always seen as a particularly attractive option for young people entering the jobs market these days. Those advising them, as careers advisers or teachers at school, do not see it in the round, and often as hard work in very dangerous circumstances. Sadly, the mortality figures for those working in the industry bear that out. It also has to be said that it has not been seen as an industry with a future. If we think back to the time when I first entered the House in 2001, we were just about to undertake a programme of decommissioning boats, and there was a second round of decommissioning in 2003. All these things have come together to present us with the skills shortage we have today.
This is not an unrecoverable position. I think the things that need to be put in place can be and are being put in place as a consequence of co-operation between the different Departments, as well as by the industry itself. However, it is pretty clear that unpicking some of the damage that has been done will not be quick or easy; it will take time. In the meantime, the need for labour in the fishing industry is acute, and it is becoming  more serious with every day that passes. As a consequence, many European economic area and non-EEA nationals are now recruited into the fishing industry.
The catching sector probably employs in the region of 4,000 people in the UK. We reckon that about 400 of them come from within European Union, and a further 800 are non-EEA nationals. As a percentage of the total fleet, that is a quite remarkable set of figures, although as a proportion of the overall number of people working in the industry, it shows that we are dealing with something fairly modest in size.
Currently, the only visas available for boats wanting to take non-EEA nationals are so-called transit visas. They are normally for those joining a ship, for whatever purpose, from a port in the United Kingdom. The requirements of a transit visa state that those involved should be engaged wholly or mainly outside UK territorial waters, which for these purposes is the 12-mile limit, and they are not allowed to work within that limit. I have to say that this is a highly unsatisfactory, hand-to-mouth solution for a number of reasons. First, the requirement forces fishermen to fish where the visa regulations allow them to fish, rather than where they know they will find the fish. That has a range of consequences, some commercial and some safety-based. I can put it no better than one of my fishing constituents did in an email this morning. He said:
“The whole 12 mile thing adds stress to an already very stressful job, especially so in the winter months.”

Bob Stewart: Does that mean that people who come from outside the EEA do not get paid until they are outside the 12-mile limit? What happens when they get on board?

Alistair Carmichael: They are paid for the hours that they work—or are engaged in employment—but they cannot actually fish until they are outside the 12-mile limit.
My second objection to the use of transit visas is that it does not work for the whole industry. It works better for some sectors: it works better for the bigger boats, albeit imperfectly, but for the smaller boats, working in the inshore sectors, it has very little to offer. Again, the fishing White Paper last week said that growth would be encouraged in the smaller boat sector, but it simply does not work for them. It is certainly no good for the prawn trawlers that have to work in shallower inshore waters, or for those who fish langoustines off the west coast in the Minch or the Little Minch. Those waters are fertile territories for those boats but are entirely within the 12-mile limit, so non-EEA crew are totally excluded.
The third concern is that those employed under the visas are left without many of the protections that the House has said over the years they should have. A few years ago, there were a few well documented and reported cases of serious welfare issues involving the crews employed under this system—paid well below the minimum wage and not given the basic employment protections that they would have if they were part of the normal land-based workforce. I hope that that is no longer the case, and I do not believe that it was ever widespread. I hope that it does not still happen, but I cannot escape the fact that it did happen and has been reported. That can be the consequence of leaving fishing crew in this strange, unsatisfactory, twilight world of the transit visas. It highlights the need for a scheme to allow proper engagement of deckhands legally and responsibly under a visa scheme.
The situation led to the creation earlier this year of the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, a coalition of industry bodies and other associated organisations, including the Fishermen’s Mission and the Apostleship of the Sea. I hope that the Minister has received and is considering the alliance’s submission about a new scheme. It is not in essence a new scheme: we seek the resurrection—or re-creation—of a limited concession that operated successfully between 2010 and 2012. Other such concessions exist, and the Minister will be aware of the recently renewed one for boats working in support of offshore renewable energy developments. Such schemes can be, and often are, drawn carefully for a specific purpose.
The outline of the concession scheme that is sought is one that guarantees conditions, safety and crew welfare that are compliant with UK legal standards. It would place limits on the duration of contracts of nine months and introduce cooling-off periods to prevent long-term continuous engagements. It would include the facility to transfer employment to another operator to encourage high standards and transparency, with regular contact with the maritime charities, such as the Mission and the Apostleship, to ensure the wellbeing and fair treatment of the crews that are employed. It would seek suitable assessments to ensure that only qualified and experienced crew from outside the EEA are engaged. There will be criminal records checks, reporting obligations on arrival and departure within service events. Such a scheme would require operators to sign up to an agreed code of practice governed by an organisation, possibly like the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, in whom the Home Office could have trust. Incorporated into that code of practice, there would be—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Alistair Carmichael: As I was saying, it would require the incorporation into the code of practice a commitment to invest in training, upskilling and engagement with the resident labour market, so that we could deal with and address properly the long-term structural problems in the industry that are bringing us to this point.
I suggest to the Minister that these are sensible, pragmatic and very workable solutions. I hope that when she comes to respond—I know the Secretary of State for Scotland will be meeting the Home Secretary next week, I believe to make a similar case—that she will understand that this is an indication of the willingness of industry to work with the Government in a way that will be constructive and which will allow the industry to get the level of labour engagement that it needs.

David Duguid: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on a very important issue that affects the fishing industry, particularly around Scotland and Northern Ireland. I thank him for doing so. Does he agree with the assessment of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association that despite a continuing increase of professionalisation and innovation in the industry, coupled with the opportunities  for leaving the EU and the common fisheries policy, it could take at least 10 years for the industry, at least in Scotland, to become fully reliant once again on local labour?

Alistair Carmichael: If anybody should know it would be the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, as its members are the people who are completely immersed in and engaged with the industry. They know what they talk about, so when they say 10 years, it is pretty clear that that will be a reasonable estimate. I would have to say that 10 years is too long to wait. Another 10 weeks or 10 months might be manageable, but if it is 10 years, these boats will no longer be there. There will no longer be the need in 10 years, one way or another.
I understand that the Minister feels that she is caught between a rock and a hard place in respect of her party’s manifesto commitments at the last general election, particularly in relation to the cap on immigration numbers—for net migration, that is. We have discussed this previously, so I understand her position, although I personally doubt whether a scheme of this sort would actually make any difference to that cap. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view about that.

Deidre Brock: Is it not the case that the industry finds itself in a real bind in that fishing is a skilled occupation? As the Scottish Affairs Committee heard in its immigration inquiry, it requires considerable amounts of training, but the Migration Advisory Committee rejected the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation request to place fishing on the shortage occupation list in 2010, apparently because the workers did not have the paper qualifications to show that they were skilled.

Alistair Carmichael: Yes, that does come to the heart of it. It is the question of regarding deck hands as unskilled labour. When I last met the Minister, I reminded her of Mike Tyson’s great expression that everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face. It is a bit like that for deck hands and their skill level. Everybody is seen as being unskilled until they are out in a force 10 gale with the trawl doors open having to fish. That is when we understand the real skill we are talking about here.
Perhaps I can help the Minister out, because I have become much more interested in last year’s Conservative party manifesto than I had previously been, and I found a little piece that might assist her. It states:
“Decades of profound economic change have left their mark on coastal communities around Britain. We will continue to ensure these communities enjoy the vitality and opportunity they deserve.”
If that commitment is anything more than warm words, we really do need urgent action from the Minister.
I want the Minister to understand why this matters so much to communities such as that which I represent. The economy in Shetland is one third fishing-dependent, so the numbers of people who work on the boats are not massive, but for every job on a boat, several jobs onshore are supported. If the boats cannot be crewed safely, they do not go to sea and they do not catch the fish. That means that people do not need to buy the fuel, to get the nets mended, and to have the engineering and electrical support that they need, and as no fish are caught, there are no jobs for the processers who deal  with the fish after they are landed. That is why this matters. It is the money that keeps businesses going. It is the money that goes into shops, that supports lawyers, doctors and accountants, that keeps children going to the school, and that keeps people living places such as this. That is why this matters to us today.
I quote again the fishing constituent who emailed me to whom I referred. He said:
“We land 100% of our catch in Scottish ports, we source 100% of our food stores, nets and rope, wires, trawl doors, chandlery, fuel, shore engineers and electrical support plus many other sundries locally in Shetland and other Scottish ports so why are we expelled from the 12 mile limit?”
I would like to hear the Minister answer to that question this evening.

Caroline Nokes: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and for the constructive and helpful way in which he has engaged on this important subject. It is an important matter, and very timely—I use the word “timely” with some trepidation. I note that this evening, I do not appear to have a Parliamentary Private Secretary and that there is not a single member of Her Majesty’s official Opposition in the Chamber, but fortunately, I do have my officials in the Box—as of very recently. If I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was a man of such integrity, I might be tempted to suggest that this was a dastardly Scottish plot to keep an English Minister from her rightful place of cheering on the England football team, but I am sure that it is coming home without me intervening in any way. Perhaps as Immigration Minister I should be focusing only on whether Mr Southgate—

Lindsay Hoyle: It is one-nil.

Caroline Nokes: I was moving on to that! As Immigration Minister, I shall focus solely on whether Mr Southgate will have something to declare when he returns home. I sincerely hope so, and as England have scored without me watching, perhaps I should stay well away from any screens.
Flippancy aside, as the Prime Minister stated when the Government published their sustainable fisheries White Paper last week, our fishing industry is the lifeblood of coastal communities around the UK. The Government are committed to seeing the industry thrive, an objective that I know is shared by the right hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous defender of his constituents’ interests, and all Members in the Chamber today. I particularly thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for the way in which have engaged with me constructively and collaboratively on this issue in the past. I certainly hope that that can continue. I am always ready to listen to their views.
As we set out in the White Paper, following our exit from the EU, the UK will have the opportunity to move towards a fairer share of fishing opportunities, overhauling the current system whereby UK fishermen have received a poor deal based on fishing patterns from the 1970s. Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU through the future economic partnership. Through the fisheries strand, there will be a separate  process whereby the EU and the UK, as an independent coastal state, will negotiate annually on access to waters and fishing opportunities.
The Government intend to introduce the fisheries Bill in this Session of Parliament. It will create powers to give the UK full control of our waters, set fishing opportunities and manage fisheries. Underpinning everything will be our commitment to sustainability, supporting future generations of fishermen and allowing our marine environment to thrive. I recognise that the fishing industry will be best placed to take advantage of those future opportunities if it has the workforce that it needs. I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made in this debate. As I said earlier, I recently met a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, to discuss the issue. It seems very wrong to get through an evening’s Adjournment debate without paying reference to Strangford, and I was delighted to also meet the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—

Lindsay Hoyle: Where is he?

Caroline Nokes: A very good question. Where is the hon. Gentleman this evening? Perhaps he had something better to do.
I am hearing clearly the message that the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, faces particular workforce challenges, and I will be reflecting further in the near future on the case for a scheme to meet the industry’s labour needs.

Douglas Ross: This is an issue in my constituency as well. One of our biggest problems is with fishermen having either to get rid of their boats, or to go out and crew them themselves. I have a very ill fisherman who feels the need to go out to catch fish himself because he does not have the crew, so there is a real safety issue. The Minister mentioned meeting colleagues in the House. Will she also come to Scotland and meet fishermen to discuss this matter?

Caroline Nokes: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the point about safety and for extending an invitation to come to Scotland to meet representatives of the fishing industry. I am extremely optimistic that I will have the opportunity to so do over the summer recess. It is important to me that I understand at first hand the issues faced by those working in the industry.
Two key points will be to the fore when we consider the industry’s future labour needs. First, as we leave the European Union, we will take back control of immigration and have an opportunity to reframe the immigration system. The Government want to ensure that any future immigration arrangements meet the needs of the UK as a whole and of businesses across all sectors of the economy. In making sure that that happens, we will need the best evidence available, which is why we have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the economic and social impacts of the UK’s departure from the EU and on how the UK’s immigration policy should best align with the Government’s industrial strategy. The committee will report in the autumn, and the Government will take full account of its recommendations when setting out their proposals for the future immigration system.

Alistair Carmichael: I am heartened to hear that this process of engagement is under way, but may I just say that there is now a real need for urgency? A decision that will be made after consideration of a report in the autumn could leave it too late.

Caroline Nokes: I do not like to pull the right hon. Gentleman up on something he said earlier, but he mentioned waiting 10 weeks or 10 months. I am certainly very conscious of the urgency—he has made that point very well, as have other Members—but it is important that we have the opportunity to reflect on the MAC’s report, and that we consider very carefully the needs of this particular industry and reflect on his comments about coastal communities.
Secondly, migration cannot be the primary—and certainly not the only—solution to skills and labour shortages in any part of the economy. As free movement from the EU ends, the Government will need to consider carefully what role migration schemes should play in meeting labour needs at all skill levels and across all sectors. I have no doubt that this will involve a fresh look at how immigration policy operates to meet labour needs at lower skill levels, but the Government’s underlying objective will be an immigration policy that is sustainable. Reducing dependence on migrant labour is part of that, and decisions about immigration policy will properly take account of what else can be done, both by government, including the devolved Administrations, and by employers to ensure that businesses can access the skills and labour that they need.
I am very aware that these are issues for the future and that the Scottish and Northern Ireland fishing industries are pressing for a more immediate response to their labour needs now. It is not the only industry that is doing so, and the Government must act even-handedly, but, as I have said, I will be reflecting carefully on the case put forward and the practicalities involved in delivering a workable solution.
I am also aware that, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined, there are some very particular issues around how the immigration system interacts with the fishing industry and the UK’s island geography, with a distinction between the controls that operate inshore and the system that applies to vessels operating beyond the 12-mile zone. I take on board the point that some see these arrangements as being unfair and arbitrary, and as presenting challenges to vessel owners in terms of  compliance, but there is an obligation on the Home Office to ensure that its policies and requirements are clear.
At the same time, there is an obligation on vessel owners to ensure that work conditions in the industry are to the standard that we would all expect and that existing immigration employer law requirements are observed. It is of clear concern that there has been evidence of exploitation of migrant workers in the fishing industry. The point has been made that a work permit scheme for the fishing industry would help with this, and I will be reflecting carefully on that.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is being enormously generous in giving way, and I promise that I will not try the patience of the House any further.
This needs to be looked at by the Government as a whole, because it is not just the question of visas. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now demanding that those who are employed on transit visas should be taxed as if they were working onshore, and surely that is wrong as well.

Caroline Nokes: There are some important issues on which we must work as a joined-up Government. I vividly recall that one of the first meetings that I had as Immigration Minister was with a Member who brought along a representative from the fishing industry on the day that the Taylor report was published. I was looking at the requirement for payslips and decent hours, and at the same time discussing the work permits and requirements of crew members working in very difficult conditions.
The Government are determined to stamp out modern slavery in the UK, and the Home Office want to ensure that the powers we have taken under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 are used to address any residual underlying problems in the sector. We will also seek to ensure that wider work to implement the International Labour Organisation’s convention on work in the fishing sector is reflected in the checks that we apply to migrant fishermen at our borders.
I have welcomed the debate. I hope that I have reassured the House that the Government are listening to the case that is being made to us.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Electricity

That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 301284, Noes 211201.

Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England and Wales: Ayes 284, Noes 201.
Question accordingly agreed to.